Oddities in the CIV4 info

[microbe]

So we all saw the front page about CIV4. Several things are odd:

1. It says "You will be able to start in a particular era.", then also "The tech tree will be more flexible, as we know. And it will not be split into eras".

Self-controdictory?

2. It says "Combat will be more simplified. There will not be separate attack and defense strengths. Units will now have one single base strength.", and also "These changes were done to encourage use of combined arms".

Isn't it a bit odd? If there is just single strength, people will just use the one with better strength instead of combining them.

 

[Sirian]

Words can be tricky.

"I'm feeling blue." "My car is blue." "There was a blue movie on TV."

"My city is producing five shields per turn." "My sword units are doing better with the new shields I researched."


What is an "era" anyway?


While I suppose it is possible that somebody's asleep at the design wheel, it looks more likely that the info that has come out so far is incomplete.


- Sirian

 

[Alpine Trooper]

So we all saw the front page about CIV4. Several things are odd:

1. It says "You will be able to start in a particular era.", then also "The tech tree will be more flexible, as we know. And it will not be split into eras".

Self-controdictory?

Not really if you use your brain.

 

[Thunderfall]

Isn't it a bit odd? If there is just single strength, people will just use the one with better strength instead of combining them.

Well, units are classified by unit types in Civ4, and one unit type can be very effective against another unit type. For example, the PC Zone preview said spearman has 100% bonus against mounted units. So even if the strength value of spearman is only 5, it's good enough to defeat a horse unit that has strength of 8. You are better off attacking the spearman with another unit, perhaps the swordsman, that's not vulnerable to spearman.

 

[playshogi]

Sounds like "rock, paper, scissors" which Soren said made for a poor game in his design doc about Civ3. Maybe he changed his mind?

 

[Quentin]

Sounds like "rock, paper, scissors" which Soren said made for a poor game in his design doc about Civ3.

Not if the relationship was assymetrical. Civ is clearly not as simple a game as rock, paper, scissors.

 

[ainwood]

Sounds like "rock, paper, scissors" which Soren said made for a poor game in his design doc about Civ3. Maybe he changed his mind?

It sounds like the key is the emphasis on combined arms. Why just take pad when you can take three rocks, some scissors and four sheets of paper?

 

[robertoross24]

i think its a good idea because in real life there are not attack and defence values.....
why would a spearman be able to defend better with the same weapon.....
its always going to do the same amount of damage in the same situation,
but not against something it cant hurt like a brick wall etc....

 

[MeteorPunch]

I think combined arms is a way around faulty AI programming. Just tell the AI to "build a bunch of units and attack or defend" works better than actually having to program AI strategies....I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Vael]

I disagree. I think it will simply make combat more interesting. You have to admit, it does make the situation more complex and wars more strategic, rather than simply building one super stack of a single type of units players will now have to balance the tyeps of units they attack and defend with, and may gain an advantage or disadvantage because of that. Sounds promising...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, as far as the tech tree and eras go, its possible that, though the tech tree itself isn't split up by eras, the game itself still is. If so, it might suggest that other factors are important in determining what era you are in-such as your economy, or your civics settings, or your industrial/agricultural capacity.
Assuming this is the case, then the question which must come next is-though the tech tree is not DIRECTLY divided by eras, are certain techs denied you if you are NOT in a certain era? Or, to put it another way, what impact does being in a particular era have over being in another?
Hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Now, as far as combat is concerned, I don't think its fair to call it a 'rock, paper, scissors' scenario-as that would imply that one unit ALWAYS wins over another. Instead, it seems more like certain units have a BETTER CHANCE of winning over certain units, all other things being equal (due to improved strength and greater damage per hit). Of course, terrain and-perhaps-even tactics might play a role in your final chance of victory. What I am MOST interested in knowing, though, is 'will combat now be simultaneous in nature?' Especially now that there is no distinction between ATTACK and DEFENSE.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Dynamic]

If attack and defend strength will be summarize (by some formula) it will be like in Heroes of Might and Magic (2 Dragon have the better attack and defend then 1) and like Army in Civ3. What's happen if I will attack by 10 Cavalries in stack? Or improvement of attack will be only in special cases with different units in the stack? (I not speak about special bonuses like spears against horsemen).

 

[dh_epic]

Simplifying the unit stats means you can diversify the unit bonuses. Spearmen and archers could have essentially the same strength, but different bonuses when attacking / defending. And you could go a step further and give units various bonuses against other unit types, or on certain terrain, and so on.

And asymmetrical bonuses may very well be in. I think people have misinterpreted Soren's stance on "Paper Rock Scissors". He spent pages analyzing it. Do you think he did that so he could say "Paper Rock Scissors is a bad idea?" Quite the contrary, I suspect he went over it for so long to learn from it. That there's some merit to asymmetrical combat, but that it shouldn't be as simple as three equal-but-different types. Perhaps that led him to combined bonuses? I have no idea.

As for removing eras, they'll never actually be 100% gone. Remembr in Civ 2 -- eras were informal, rather than seperate pages on the tech tree. You always had a sense that when your cities changed to little towns you were in the industrial age, and when you saw little skyscrapers you were in the modern age. But they never spelled it out.

 

[Vael]

Well, as far as the tech tree and eras go, its possible that, though the tech tree itself isn't split up by eras, the game itself still is

This makes sense. If you're going to allow a start after the very beginning of the game then you have to have some way to determine when and what a players starts with - it's probably just a baseline tech level and economic development depending on which 'era' you start in.

 

[Moonsinger]

2. It says "Combat will be more simplified. There will not be separate attack and defense strengths. Units will now have one single base strength.", and also "These changes were done to encourage use of combined arms".

Isn't it a bit odd? If there is just single strength, people will just use the one with better strength instead of combining them.

Since a unit does gain new ability when it's victorious in battle, my guess is that we would have to combine a lot of arms (to sacrifice lesser units) in order to promote certain units within the group. It's a lot like in Age of Wonder or Master of Magic where I hire a wizard to lead a group of my troops. Every time the group win a battle, everyone in the group would gain experience points. With enough experience, a unit would get a promotion the next level and I would have an option to increase his attack/defense/spell-casting and so on. To make a long story short, a unit could start out as a wizard, but in end, he may become a master swordman instead. That would be my guess.

 

[covenant]

What I find very odd is Fraxis is removing governments for civics, where by you implement laws and policies that create your government over time instead of just choosing democracy or facism, but then they go and add out-of-the-box religions (chirstianity or buddhism.) Not complaining mind you, I am thrilled with civics, just surprised they are not doing something similar with religion. Letting it evolve as new religious and philosophical ideas emerge through the ages.

 

[microbe]

Well, units are classified by unit types in Civ4, and one unit type can be very effective against another unit type. For example, the PC Zone preview said spearman has 100% bonus against mounted units. So even if the strength value of spearman is only 5, it's good enough to defeat a horse unit that has strength of 8. You are better off attacking the spearman with another unit, perhaps the swordsman, that's not vulnerable to spearman.

I understand this, but I guess you all missed my point.

The change that units gain bonus vs other units would definitely contribute to more diversified armies. The thing odd to me is that the statement classifies the change that takes away separate attack/defense points into the same category. To me separate attack/defense IS probably the only reason that we use different units in a stack in CIV3.

They could keep separate A/D points and still let them gain unit-specific bonus. That way there would be more reasons to diversify armies. These are orthoganal.

I am not saying the way CIV4 chooses to do it is bad. I just find the statement a bit odd, logically.

 

[Civrules]

I understand this, but I guess you all missed my point.

The change that units gain bonus vs other units would definitely contribute to more diversified armies. The thing odd to me is that the statement classifies the change that takes away separate attack/defense points into the same category. To me separate attack/defense IS probably the only reason that we use different units in a stack in CIV3.

They could keep separate A/D points and still let them gain unit-specific bonus. That way there would be more reasons to diversify armies. These are orthoganal.

I am not saying the way CIV4 chooses to do it is bad. I just find the statement a bit odd, logically.

I guess we'll get more clarification on this when more previews come along.
You can't judge the info out of one source anyways. The more previews you have to compare the better, and the more accurate the info will be.

 

[microbe]

You can't judge the info out of one source anyways. The more previews you have to compare the better, and the more accurate the info will be.

I agree with you. We are trying to get more info out of the limited disclosure, and that's what this forum is about. See the "1000 Clues You Anticipate CIV4 Too Much".