New Combat System?

[Ahriman]

My concern will be in the more modern era when Subs can swoop in past defenders and take out the transports.

To me, that sounds great; that's what subs *should* be doing. Picking weak targets, not attacking warships.

 

[tom2050]

In previous civilization games it was the case, that the attack and defense value of a unit was one and the same. When a unit lost a battle, it was also weaker in defense. This is now gone, the defensive value of a unit in Civ V stays now constant, so that even a heavily damaged tank can't be defeated by some spearmen.

That is a good idea right there. Units on defense have a far better chance than units on offense if they have sustained casualties (in certain timelines of history, not all). But having a full out offensive takes alot more than just sitting back, waiting for an enemy.

But, they might as well just give units 2 numbers then, back to Civ 2 and 3.. since the only number that changes is offense. Or it doesn't really matter, keep it like Civ 4; 1 number is easier to read for the masses. What people don't know, they don't ask questions. The masses are mindless (so say some), and the easier the game is, the better for them.

 

[kurtkage]

wow yea I hadn't really given alot of thought to the 1unit per tile effect on naval battles, that sounds fun to have to actually defend your convoy with escorts in various positions instead of the stacked escorts.

hmm I'm picturing hit and runs on specific spots in the convoy where escorts can't catch you as you disengage, maybe submarines will have more value this time around

 

[Roland Johansen]

This here:

Bij vorige Civilization-games was het zo dat de defensieve en offensieve waarde van een eenheid één en dezelfde waren. Verloor een eenheid bij een aanval wat kracht, dan was hij defensief ook zwakker. Dat is nu verleden tijd, de defensieve waarde van eenheden in Civ V blijft altijd gelijk, waardoor zelfs een zwaarbeschadigde tank niet vernietigd kan worden door een paar botte speren.

translates in german to

In vorigen Civilization Spielen war es so dass die defensiven und offensiven Werte einer Einheit ein und dasselbe waren. Verlor eine Einheit bei einem Angriff an Stärke, so war sie auch defensiv schwächer. Das ist nun Vergangenheit, der Defensivwert einer Einheit in Civ V bleibt stets gleich, wodurch selbst ein schwer beschädigter Panzer nicht durch ein paar plumpe Speerkämpfer vernichtet werden kann.

translates in english to

In previous civilization games it was the case, that the attack and defense value of a unit was one and the same. When a unit lost a battle, it was also weaker in defense. This is now gone, the defensive value of a unit in Civ V stays now constant, so that even a heavily damaged tank can't be defeated by some spearmen.

I hope a native netherlandish speaker can confirm this.

I speak Dutch, German and English (native language Dutch). I see one slight omission from the translation from Dutch to German. The second English sentence should read something like: 'When a unit lost some of its strength in an offensive battle, then it would also be defensively weakened'. But this seems only a detail (some more details are different, but this one is the only one which differs in meaning). Oh, and the final English translation suffers from being a translation of a translation. I doubt a native English speaker would write something like that.

However, in more general terms: the word defensive can mean more than what we're used to in Civilization 1 till 3. The designers could have added an armor value to units which would make very advanced units impervious to damage from ancient units. Think in terms of: Tanks inflict 50 damage points per combat round and ignore the first 10 damage points per turn and spearman inflict 5 damage points per turn and ignore the first 2 damage points per turn. This would of course make tanks immune to spearman even when they were damaged (in an attack on another type of unit that could damage them). This reading of the short text would make far more sense than units which cannot be weakened defensively at all.

We have to realise that the average reviewer might not know the history of offensive and defensive values as used in earlier versions of civilization.

 

[Ahriman]

This reading of the short text would make far more sense than units which cannot be weakened defensively at all.

Hopefully it is something like this. But I understand the risks with 1UPT of having a slaughterfest where every attacking unit (that gets damaged) is then beaten down and killed the next turn.

My guess is it means; it can still "fight" as well (in terms of damage dealt per combat round, probability of winning each combat round), its just that it will die quicker (because it has fewer hit points).

We have to realise that the average reviewer might not know the history of offensive and defensive values as used in earlier versions of civilization.

Anyone who hasn't played Civ1-4 has no business working for a games magazine, let alone writing an article about Civ

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

This thing sounds like a bloody disaster. Get the tactical crap outta there.

Yay, my archer has a range of 500 km.

 

[Dale]

Yay, my archer has walked one tile in 50 years, then later 5 tiles in 1 year.

It's called GAMEPLAY!

 

[Drago Askani]

This thing sounds like a bloody disaster. Get the tactical crap outta there.

Yay, my archer has a range of 500 km.

Then don't buy the game. Its here to stay for Civ 5 if you don't like it then maybe it will be different for Civ 6 but don't count on it. They wanted to get rid of the damn SoDs forever.

 

[ArataWata11]

The new combat system is looks promising. Hope they introduce unit surrendering, or before the unit engage the enemy, an option pup up where you can ask defensing unit to surrender or give up their strategic location and the defensive unit responds will depend on the all n all defense value of the unit, or they were surrounded or they were at the edge tile. . .

POW may return at the in of the war, exchage of POW or in medieval time there are option to ransom, free or execute prisoners. . . with of course consequences. . .

what do you think guys. . .

 

[The_J]

[...]

Thanks for the correction .

also interesting idea, i completly forgot the concept of armor.
I guess, this could be really implemented in that way.

Yay, my archer has a range of 500 km.

On a small or on a huge map?

 

[Roland Johansen]

Thanks for the correction .

also interesting idea, i completly forgot the concept of armor.
I guess, this could be really implemented in that way.

Thank you very much for providing the information from the magazine.

 

[Buccaneer]

I don't understand the "one unit type per hex" - given the scale of civilization. A traditional war game would have one unit per hex but its scale would be a much smaller area. Also, given that scale, historical armies (of all eras) did include mixed arms units. Even today, you have attack helos moving with ground units - in the same space.

 

[chongli]

I don't understand the "one unit type per hex" - given the scale of civilization. A traditional war game would have one unit per hex but its scale would be a much smaller area. Also, given that scale, historical armies (of all eras) did include mixed arms units. Even today, you have attack helos moving with ground units - in the same space.

In Civ V you will be able to stack your aircraft with your ground units. You just can't stack 2 ground units together.

 

[voleur]

Hello

I have a question on the limit of one unit by hex.
What about allies ?
Because I imagine their 1st line in 1st line, my 1st line in the second line, their second line in 3rd line and my 2nd line in 4th line, that's going not to be easy.

Sorry for my bad english.

 

[Ahriman]

We don't know yet, but presumably the 1 unit (per domain) per tile will be strict; otherwise having an ally would be too powerful, because it would let you violate 1UpT.

 

[nmcul]

I actually hope that they aren't really implementing an automatic unit upgrade system. One way of fighting a war in the current system is through economics, and I'd hate for an opposing player to automatically be able to turn all of his cavalry into tanks while I'm in the middle of an invasion, or get all of his frigates turned into destroyers while I'm conducting a naval blockade just because he was able to hit the next tech. Even in most RTS games, you wouldn't get something for nothing just like that. And considering that units will now cost a lot more to build, the logistical considerations would make even less sense.

Not that there wouldn't be benefits, of course. Without pay-for-upgrade and with no tech trading allowed, you could run through an entire game with a treasury of about 10 gold or less.

 

[chongli]

One of the principal purposes of one-unit-per-tile is that when you attack a tile, there is only one unit to defend that tile. As soon as you go to more than one-unit-per-tile you introduce an ambiguity: which unit gets to defend?

Traditionally, the game has chosen the best possible defender in the stack to defend. Why is this bad? Because it eliminates all tactical planning. No matter what you do, the game will choose the best defender to counter it.

 

[the343danny]

One of the principal purposes of one-unit-per-tile is that when you attack a tile, there is only one unit to defend that tile. As soon as you go to more than one-unit-per-tile you introduce an ambiguity: which unit gets to defend?

Traditionally, the game has chosen the best possible defender in the stack to defend. Why is this bad? Because it eliminates all tactical planning. No matter what you do, the game will choose the best defender to counter it.

Thats partly why I'm so excited

My super elite lvl 12 tank isnt going to die in a 1% odd unlucky battle anymore

 

[Ahriman]

I agree with chongli, except that I would say the issue isn't ambiguity, its that the "best defender" mechanic makes specialization too valuable on defense (and not valuable enough on offense).

My super elite lvl 12 tank isnt going to die in a 1% odd unlucky battle anymore

How so? These issues (low probability events, 1 unit per tile) seem completely unrelated to me.

 

[nmcul]

My guess is that his reasoning is that Firaxis is likely to implement Panzer General's "more than one battle to totally kill units" rule, which does seem likely. Trouble is, if they don't use that rule, then using Civ IV's combat system in a 1 UPT Civ game would mean that the AI's occasional moon logic results (3+ losses at >95%) could mean your entire civilization could collapse. Well, maybe not, but a few heinously bad rolls -which happen all the time in this game- could cause you to lose a war that you had no right to lose, solely based on some longbowman taking out three divisions of musketeers or whatever.