One attack and deffence?

[CustodianV131]

And on top of it Custer didn't wait for some reinforcements, but was going to get all the "fame" alone. What he did, in some way.

Sort of strange. If he had won the engagement almost nobody would remember his name.

Anyway I'm fine with the new "power rating" seems with the bonuses and upgrades the new system will be interesting and strategically enough. I guess it will make the handling of units by the AI somewhat less prone to silly moves, which is a good thing at least.

Think if the kept the old system and included the would bonuses thing and upgrades, it would get to complicated for the target audience they are trying to reach.

Also with the new bonus rating you would get a lot of units with the same defence and attack rating, but then with bonuses when defending attacking a certain enemy. So what's the difference then with combining then in one number. I think when we'll see it in action we'll get used to it soon enough.

 

[Himalia]

To the best of my knowledge, the Sioux (?) were equipped with quite some rifles as well. They did outnumber Custer's unit by far.
Furthermore, Custer had split his unit into two parts which were eliminated seperately. Additionally, after a while the 7th US cavalry ran out of ammo. And on top of it Custer didn't wait for some reinforcements, but was going to get all the "fame" alone. What he did, in some way

So, in Civ terms, the equivalent of the Little Big Horn would be 2 cavalry units seperated by some tiles and each of them facing a stack of veteran (to symbolize the skills and weapons) mounted archers.

Im glad someone said that. I think units hould get a bonus against lower tech units but thats all. It should still be possible for a lower tech unit to win. Afterall lets just imagine a group of Marines taking on unit after unit of lancers the sheere weight of numbers could get the job done evntually. But by no means a certenty.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The other benefit of replacing A/D with a single number is that you now no longer have arbitrary Offensive and Defensive units. This is especially important for the AI, which had a real problem with using defensive units outside of the defense of forts or cities. Even for players, though, it could lead to truly fantastic Infantry on Infantry field battles, reminiscent of WWI.
Oh, and as for eliminating the Spearman vs. Tank phenomenon, I reckon it will have something to do with a penalty that spear/pike units have against armoured opponents.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Legionary37]

I have to say I'm glad for this change in Civ 4. Bonuses are the way to go.

It eliminates the suspect "Wait and then attack" or "Just let them defend" that turn based gameplay creates. Now, we aren't going to see tanks destroyed easily by other tanks because they're being "attacked".

It also makes it easier to program AI for IMO.

 

[Himalia]

Thats true it sounds like it going to be pretty good. There are so many modifiers they can give stuff dependning on terrian , troop types involved, fortifications if applicable, supporting artillery fire etc. If theres any modding tools the possibilites could be endless.

 

[Jaybe]

...

EDIT: I do however fail to see why/how the single strength approach should prevent the Spearman beats Battleship situation from occuring. ...

Spearman, strength of 4, does 4 points of damage with each strike.
Battleship, (hypothetical) strength of 32, would do 32 points of damage with each strike.

Presumably, one hit (with just ONE 14-16-or-18 inch shell) wipes out the whole spearman unit (three 4-pt hits?). OTOH, one hit by the spearman puts a scratch on the hull of the battleship (1/24 of its three 32-pt hits?).

 

[Himalia]

Kind of like have a soak of some kind for the unit in question. For example you can throw sticks and stones at someone and you could even kill them if you hit them enough but if you through sticks and stones at a battleship it simply does nothing as it does not have the impact required to penetrate its hull.

 

[eddie_verdde]

what's the point in units having different attack and defense values? you don't see how the battle proceeds...all you see is 2 icons competing for the same tile...just because one unit is standing in one tile and another is trying to occupy that tile, doesn't mean that the "defender" will stay still and wait for the enemy charge...that's not the way battles are fought...eventually both armies advance towards each other until they clash and in that moment the most powerful will gain advantage.


For instance, you can try to occupy a tile "defended" by a rival knight with your bowman, but that doesn't mean the attack will be made by the bowman. If we could "zoom in" to the battle field, the bowman would most likely move near the knight and then fire a bunch of arrows, but the bowman would stay still and fire until the knights arrived...so, in this case the bowman would defend its position, not attack the enemy position.

What I mean is: in CIV, when we say "attack", in most cases we're talking about a unit trying to occupy an already occupied square, it doesn't refer to the act of "attack" per se...attack/defense makes more sense in RTS games, where you can actually visualize the battle field and control the movements and tactics of your individual troops.

 

[Himalia]

Its almost as if the game needs a more detailed combat sytemn in which you can deploy droops in any given battle and move them as you se fit depending on what happens. The problem here is it then starts to become another game.

 

[Superkrest]

im actually really glad to see defense/offensive part of the game gone...it was ..as said before..rather silly that a tank attacking a tank..the defender would almost always loose...its just not true...in isreal..when the syrians attacked the northern plains...a few tanks held back hordes of syrian tanks...i always thought that infintry were better suited for forward attacks then defense and so on..im actually rather excited to see this new combat system.

 

[Himalia]

That is indeed true it could often just come down to who can attack who first.

 

[CyberChrist]

Spearman, strength of 4, does 4 points of damage with each strike.
Battleship, (hypothetical) strength of 32, would do 32 points of damage with each strike.

Presumably, one hit (with just ONE 14-16-or-18 inch shell) wipes out the whole spearman unit (three 4-pt hits?). OTOH, one hit by the spearman puts a scratch on the hull of the battleship (1/24 of its three 32-pt hits?).

The only reference to HPs that I have seen is the one about each unit will have 3 'units' graphically representing 'full health' and that they will loose 1 'unit' when they take damage until there are none left - and the unit is defeated.

But if we assume that you are right and that each unit have 3xstrength in actual HPs your description would make excellent sense - a strength 32 unit could wipe out a strength 4 unit in one swift blow while the strength 4 unit would require extreme luck and hit the strength 32 unit 24 times (3x32 /4) without getting hit once itself.

If this is indeed how it works then it is definetly a big upgrade.

 

[Jaybe]

The news about "firepower" equals the strength value is rather old. Perhaps the 1st or 2nd preview on CIV.

 

[Illini Rule]

Jaybe, what is your point

 

[frekk]

im actually really glad to see defense/offensive part of the game gone...it was ..as said before..rather silly that a tank attacking a tank..the defender would almost always loose...its just not true...in isreal..when the syrians attacked the northern plains...a few tanks held back hordes of syrian tanks...i always thought that infintry were better suited for forward attacks then defense and so on..im actually rather excited to see this new combat system.

Yep ... that always bugged me too ... defending tanks always have a massive advantage against attacking tanks, they take hull-down positions on hilltops or build up earth embankments in front of their position so that only the turret is exposed, and they blast enemy tanks' treads and hulls as they try to cross the open spaces. It's very very difficult to overcome dug-in defending tanks, unless you've got a superior MBT or superior numbers so you can outflank them.

 

[loseth]

Agreed. Tiles are so big that it always seemed silly to me to make attacking and defending so different, unless somebody's fortified (or in a city), which makes sense, of course.

Even in the case of defending a city, I have a feeling that cavalry would simply dismount to man the walls (thereby deserving an infantryman's 'defense' rating), then mount up again whenever a sally was made (thereby deserving their cavalry 'attack' rating). I think the one-number system will be better in pretty much every instance (I've been using it with my mods for years).

 

[Himalia]

Really how did you manage to alter attributes depending on what the exact scenario is ? Or have i misunderstood.

 

[loseth]

Really how did you manage to alter attributes depending on what the exact scenario is ? Or have i misunderstood.

Sorry, I think don't think I expressed myself clearly. I mean that in my personal games, I always mod scenarios so that infantry are 10 attack, 10 defense. I admit that, because of the lack of bonuses in Civ III, I sometimes add slightly more to units' attack values to help make combined arms necessary, but in general I try to differentiate units in other ways (defensive bombard, ability to fortify, movement, terrain movement bonuses/penalties, blitz attack, etc.).

 

[th0mas]

Does anyone know if Zone's of Control are back in Civ4?

From my very light reviewing of the new features of CIV4, I understood that the number of units in the latter parts of the game, as compared to Civ3, would 'on average' be less. Or have I completely made that up?

Either way, I always liked ZOC in Civ 1 & 2. IMHO it added an extra level of tactical thinking to the game and I felt that CIV 3 was the poorer without it.