Inside Gamer - new Interview with Jon Shafer, some new info!

[Ahriman]

Bombardment= exactly the same as ordinary combat.

I really doubt it. If nothing else, I would guess that actually attacking a unit in "melee" would do a lot more damage than a ranged bombardment.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I really doubt it. If nothing else, I would guess that actually attacking a unit in "melee" would do a lot more damage than a ranged bombardment.

Why, that would tend to gimp artillery. (unless you add the Additional qualification of seperate ranged+melee strengths)

The only difference I could see being necessary/useful is if units are 1 Hex away, and take sufficient damage from being attacked, they can be forced to or given the option to move/retreat.

Possibly also surrounding bonuses.

 

[Chalks]

Why, that would tend to gimp artillery. (unless you add the Additional qualification of seperate ranged+melee strengths)

The only difference I could see being necessary/useful is if units are 1 Hex away, and take sufficient damage from being attacked, they can be forced to or given the option to move/retreat.

Possibly also surrounding bonuses.

I think you'll need to separate ranged and melee strengths. Artillery need to be very powerful from range but useless in adjacent combat in order to make flanking a viable option.

I feel the same goes for all ranged units probably. If riflemen are able to attack at range, perhaps equal ranged and "melee" strengths would make sense meaning you could have two rows of gunpowder units - an entrenched front line with a ranged line behind them.

 

[Ahriman]

Artillery need to be very powerful from range but useless in adjacent combat in order to make flanking a viable option.

Absolutely, siege units should be more effective at bombard than melee.

Makes much more sense than trying to make melee and ranged combat equivalent.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Absolutely, siege units should be more effective at bombard than melee.

Makes much more sense than trying to make melee and ranged combat equivalent.

They would be less effective because they would take damage.

Artillery + Melee1 v. Melee2

The Melee2 should Attack the Artillery if they can because then the Artillery will take Damage.

If the Artillery is weaker than the Melee units then it is still useful because it deals damage without taking it. Also it can hit a larger number of possible targets. (including possibly retreating units).

So having

Artillery str 10, Melee1 Str 15 v. Melee2

If Melee 2 attacks Melee 1, then they won't do as much damage, and will receive more damage in the defensive 'shot'.

The Artillery is still useful because it allows a total of 25 Str to do damage against Melee 2 on the attack (although it wouldn't help on the defensive 'shot' against Melee1 when it attacked Melee2)

Basically "Melee" and "Artillery" would not be
Melee = Range 1
Artillery = Range more than 1

instead it would be
Melee= units with equal range (so two Battleships at Range 5 fight the same way the same as 2 Swordsmen at Range 1)
Artillery=unit attacking a unit that can't attack back because you out range it.


This allows an easy transition so that all Riflemen+units could have a range of 2 but the combat would basically be as if they were Swordsmen and the Howitzers with range of 3-4 would be the new Archers.

You don't need special rules... just make 'Artillery' units weaker... which means they have to be used at range to be combat effective.

 

[Ahriman]

You don't need special rules... just make 'Artillery' units weaker... which means they have to be used at range to be combat effective.

Which means that riflemen are more effective at range than artillery? No, that doesn't work.

We have to have *either*:
a) Only artillery units can do range, in which case its fine if units are equivalent at range and melee.
OR
b) Riflemen units also have a ranged attack, but units can have different strengths in range vs melee. Clearly rifles should be better than artillery at melee (otherwise artillery >>> rifles), which means that artillery have to have better ranged attack than their melee attack (otherwise rifles >>> artillery).

You gotta pick one.

I guess as a third possibility, you could purely have atillery have a longer bombardment range, but that just turns the whole game into ranged bombardment, and destroys all the importance of unit placement/positioning/terrain, and would suck.

So, a) or b), otherwise you have a glaring inconsistency.

 

[axi]

Seeing that accuracy decreases with range for all units in all times, this can be reflected as different attack strength the farther away the units are. So riflemen are more powerful at point blank range than when they are one hex away. Battleships will be able to shoot at eachother from a distance while inflicting minor damage to eachother and the underdog will try to increase the distance to minimise the damage he is getting. So, assuming a 5 tile range:
1tile : 24 (point blank)
2tiles: 16
3tiles: 10
4tiles: 6
5tiles: 4

Having promotions or range enhancing technology could skew the range penalty. Missile cruisers may have a much less pronounced range penalty, thanks to guidance technology.

 

[Chalks]

Seeing that accuracy decreases with range for all units in all times, this can be reflected as different attack strength the farther away the units are. So riflemen are more powerful at point blank range than when they are one hex away. Battleships will be able to shoot at eachother from a distance while inflicting minor damage to eachother and the underdog will try to increase the distance to minimise the damage he is getting. So, assuming a 5 tile range:
1tile : 24 (point blank)
2tiles: 16
3tiles: 10
4tiles: 6
5tiles: 4

Having promotions or range enhancing technology could skew the range penalty. Missile cruisers may have a much less pronounced range penalty, thanks to guidance technology.

However, for primarily ranged troops, you will need this system to be inverted, at least partially. If archers deal more damage at adjacent range then flanking them is completely counter productive, you want to keep 1 tile away and they want to get closer to you. This basically turns them into front line troops with a ranged perk, not ranged support troops that are vulnerable to flanking (as they should be).

 

[rickb]

This is one of the funniest threads I've read in a while. Guys getting their panties in a bunch over what they think is being said on badly auto-translated (is there any other kind?) Dutch web page. It's like a game of telephone with gamer geeks.

Hey you know what be fun? Let's translate an article in English about Civilization back and forth from Dutch or some other language until the translation "stabilizes" and see what we get.

 

[Ahriman]

Hey you know what be fun? Let's translate an article in English about Civilization back and forth from Dutch or some other language until the translation "stabilizes" and see what we get.

Neat idea! I tried it with the IGN preview, and it stabilized as this:

We did not invent the algorithm. The algorithm consistently finds Jesus. The algorithm killed Jeeves. The algorithm is banned in China. The algorithm is from Jersey. The algorithm constantly finds Jesus. This is not the algorithm. This is close.

Weird, huh? You'd think it would be longer.

 

[chongli]

It seems krikkitone has a habit of making up incredibly complicated schemes just to avoid the obvious solution. He must be descended from Rube Goldberg or something.

 

[axi]

However, for primarily ranged troops, you will need this system to be inverted, at least partially. If archers deal more damage at adjacent range then flanking them is completely counter productive, you want to keep 1 tile away and they want to get closer to you. This basically turns them into front line troops with a ranged perk, not ranged support troops that are vulnerable to flanking (as they should be).

If archers have the capability to fire their arrows first, then they will be more devastating. However retaliatory or preemptive fire cannot be unlimited; i.e. if two swordsmen attack one archer, then the archer unit may be able to preemptively strike at the first attacker but not the second, because IRL the attack would be simultaneous and the archer would not be able to fire at both.

Panzer General works that way I think.

Perhaps a mobile unit with a speed advantage will not be targeted by a first strike (flanking). OTOH pikemen or swordsmen could never really flank lighter infantry.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You gotta pick one.

I guess as a third possibility, you could purely have atillery have a longer bombardment range, but that just turns the whole game into ranged bombardment, and destroys all the importance of unit placement/positioning/terrain, and would suck.

Basically the whole game IS ranged bombardment... as long as ranged bombardment
1. can have counter attacked
2. can take place at range 1

Then "Bombardment"=Attack ie no difference, except when the defender doesn't have enough range to shoot back

Artillery having a longer bombardment range is what they are going for (Modern Ships having ranges of 5 or 6... indicates that on shore artillery would have a similar ranges)

Units would still get benefits from Terrain and position.

You still keep your long ranged units beind your short ranged units (to hold back the Other sides Short Ranged units)

It may seem harder to hold a mountain pass with gunpowder units, since there are more units that can attack you... but you have more units that can attack them.

ie a Rifleman is best for attacking a unit at range 2 or range 1
an Artillery (WW2) is best for attacking a unit at range 3 or 4 (because the Rifleman can't don't have that range)

Shorter Range, Better Strength = Melee unit (Tanks range 2, Riflemen range 2, Swordsmen range 1, Knights range 1, Battleships range 6)
Longer Range, Worse Strength = 'Bombardment' unit (Archers range 2, Catapult range 2, Artillery range 4, Carrier w aircraft on board range 12)

So Rifleman v. Archer is a Melee v. Melee battle (neither side benefits from additional range because they have to close the distance) it looks exactly the same a a sword v. sword battle except the sides are farther apart.

Rifle v. Sword is a Bombard v. Melee battle (the Sword needs to get closer to the rifle than the rifle does to the Sword... Barriers are in the Rifles favor)

Rifle v. Artillery is a Melee v. Bombard battle (the Rifle needs to get closer to the Artillery than the Artillery needs to get to the Rifle. the Artillery wants the distance to stay at 3-4, the Rifle wants it at 2-1 so he can counterattack)


So
preGunpowder "Melee" (True melee)= Range 1
Ancient Bombard (Archers, Catapults)=Range 2
Gunpowder "Melee"=Range 2
Gunowder "Artillery"/Ships=Range 3, 4
Modern Artillery/Ships=Range 5, 6
Modern Aircraft=Range... 8-12









As for proposing complex schemes... I'm proposing something simpler than anything except Civ 1

1. Attack... an Attacking unit can attack any unit in its range. That does a certain amount of damage to the defending unit
2. Defense...if the Attacking unit is in range of the Defending unit, then the Defending unit does a certain amount of damage back.

only one (or two depending on how you count) round of combat, no special 'bombardment' rules. Bombardment is just any attack where the defender can't attack back.

Incredibly simple and then some simple calculation for how much damage is done. Unlike Civ 2-4 where the total damage done in a combat was an iterated calculation based on chances to hit per round, and in Civ 4 the amount of damage done each round itself being a complex calculation of 20 hp*(3*A+D)/(A+3*D).


The Obvious Solution is:

Units with Longer Range are Weaker (assuming equal tech/cost etc.)

No 'bombardment' command just "Attack"... the defender counter attacks if they have enough range

No 'accuracy'/range penalty (except for special circumstances ie penalty for attacking over a river)

No First Strikes, etc.

 

[Ahriman]

Basically the whole game IS ranged bombardment... as long as ranged bombardment
1. can have counter attacked
2. can take place at range 1

I don't think that's a useful way to think about it. First, ranged combat (beyond "range 1"/melee) can't be blocked by other units. So it is fundamentally different from normal melee.
Second, and we don't know if this will be implemented yet, but in previous Civ games the winner has been able to move into the tile of the defender. Doesn't happen with ranged combat.
Possibly this might only happen if you destroy the unit entirely.

The Obvious Solution is:

I love how you always seem to think your particular weird idiosyncratic design is the only possible "obvious" solution.

No, the most "obvious" solution would be Just Like Previous Versions of Civ, where ranged bombardment is very different from melee unit to unit mechanics, and has different combat calculations.

Under your system, catapults would have to have longer range than archers, so we'd have to have range 3 bombardment.... in which case unit placement is truly useless, because you can't shield anything effectively.

Under your system, ranged bombardment of 2 tiles or more is exactly the same as ranged bombardment of 1 tile... except for all the cases it isn't, like river crossing penalties or amphibious assault penalties.

Historically war is a close-in fought battle. Turning everything into ranged bombardment would be completely lame.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I don't think that's a useful way to think about it. First, ranged combat (beyond "range 1"/melee) can't be blocked by other units. So it is fundamentally different from normal melee.

It CAN still be blocked... If I stop the Rifleman from getting into 2 Range, I have blocked them
Artillery.empty.Rifleman.Enemy Rifle

Now in 2 D this needs a wider front, but that is true with archers

Second, and we don't know if this will be implemented yet, but in previous Civ games the winner has been able to move into the tile of the defender. Doesn't happen with ranged combat.
Possibly this might only happen if you destroy the unit entirely.

And if you destroy the unit entirely, you can then move into the tile using a normal movement, regardless how it was destroyed

I love how you always seem to think your particular weird idiosyncratic design is the only possible "obvious" solution.
No, the most "obvious" solution would be Just Like Previous Versions of Civ, where ranged bombardment is very different from melee unit to unit mechanics, and has different combat calculations.

OK not obvious to a civ iv player, but obvious to a civ 5 player, especially given the WYSIWYG principle.
(there are plenty of Possible solutions. Units could have different ranges v. different other units (ie Riflemen have Range 2 v. ancient units but Range 1 v. other Riflemen.... it is quite possible, but needlessly complicated)

Under your system, catapults would have to have longer range than archers,

Why? Just make Catapults "AntiFortification" archers (ie bonus for attacking City walls and Forts)
Why should they outrange Archers?

Historically war is a close-in fought battle. Turning everything into ranged bombardment would be completely lame.

Historically....are you bringing up realism? with the 1 upt and the massive scale disparities of civ... really?
If 2 units are bombarding each other back and forth from two tiles away, how is that different in reality from two gunpowder armies shooting at each other from 200 feet away?

The fact that those two hexes are 2/3 of the distance economic influence of the nearest city? or the fact that one hex is enough to allow a ship to go through and block land units from moving?
Perhaps the fact that there are only a few thousand of those hexes in the Whole World?

The game is allowing ancient archers to bombard across things the size of the Caspian Sea and you are talking about how battles are historically fought.

Now if you accept the disconnect between the strategic and tactical function of the map, then 2 units are bombarding each other back and forth from two tiles away is no different than two real gunpowder armies shooting at each other from 200 feet away? (or 2,000 feet or whatever is a reasonable limit of gunpowder unit engagement)

In any case, they have said that Modern ship ranges are 5-6 hexes... implying lots of very long range bombardment.

If practically all modern units are capable of long range bombardment, then why have 2 separate combat models for most of your units?

If you really want, have some combat bonuses for units that are surrounding (adjacent) to another unit.

 

[EmpireOfCats]

"To once again ridicule our eastern neighbour's (Germany, TR) obsession with numbers we ask in a thick German accent: 'How many hexagons are there in zee game?'

"Obsession with numbers"? Is this some strange Dutch prejudice those of us who live in Germany have never heard of?

I can think of three reasons why this is wrong. Wait, I can think of four reasons -- no, it's five reasons. Maybe six ... more like seven, now that I think about it ...

 

[kivanc]

all and all it seems to me that there are 2 possiblities about that 2500number
* jon is just making fun of us
* jon doesn't like large maps, so he won't care about gamers who like large maps, he will just do it small.

both ways, i didn't like this interview

 

[seasnake]

"Pirates" is probably the model for this. In Pirates, there were units that had a ranged attack but weak defense, and melee that had strong attack and defense, but had to close the gaps to engage. Line of sight, terrain, flanking, troop placement were everything, and only one unit per tile. It was a square grid.

Your ranged units did more damage the closer they were to the enemy, if they were on high ground, or if there was nothing between them and their target. They had penalties the farther the unit was or if there was an obstruction (a friendly unit or terrain) or if the enemy they attacked was higher than them. Meanwhile, infrantry and cavalry benefited from flanking enemies, charging down from higher ground, etc.

So say you have archers and spearmen, and the enemy is coming with cavalry and archers. You want your archers in front of your spearmen so the spearmen don't reduce the archers effectiveness. However, because cavalry can close the distance quickly, you may only get one shot from quite a distance before you have to hide them behind your spearmen. Meanwhile, your enemy withdraws his cavalry before they run into the spearmen, and he switches it so that his cavalry are behind his archers. The archers bombard the spearmen effectively. Meanwhile, you are stuck with your archers hiding behind your spears, and being less efective, because if you maneuver them to be in front to get the advantages of closer, unobstructed shot you worry the enemy may switch out his archers and cavalry and have his cavalry charge before you can move your archers out of the way.

This is the kind of chess game combat may become soon. It worked well in pirates, and I'm looking forward to Civ.

 

[frekk]

The article quote Shafer as literally saying:

which translates to:

"All ship in Civilization V can carry unit. This way it should become more attractive to build a big navy."

This contradicts earlier reports of units becoming their own transports.

Not necessarily.

We know that two different types of units (like land and air) can occupy the same tile, right? So ... maybe ships aren't exactly "carrying" the land units but escorting them. You need to have a ship in the square, perhaps, to get a land unit to enter it, but "carrying" might just be one way of looking at it. Perhaps graphically it's represented differently.

 

[V. Soma]

maybe ships aren't exactly "carrying" the land units but escorting them. You need to have a ship in the square, perhaps, to get a land unit to enter it, but "carrying" might just be one way of looking at it. Perhaps graphically it's represented differently.

Yes, that is what I think, also...