One attack and deffence?

[Illini Rule]

I think a unit should have a attack and defence. Some units are beter at attack and some at defence. I would like to know if anyone else is upset.

 

[Carver]

I agree with you that the "Illini Rule," but concerning the stats I think the new system is better. At first I was dissappointed that they wre going to just one value but if you go over the previews you'll see that they're adding much more strategery to the combat model. Units have natural advantages over other units and they get promotions which give them specific abilities. It's sounding really good.

 

[North King]

Well, it really does depend in some cases, but I agree with you--there's no way a horseman is going to defend himself as well as he can charge down an enemy. They claim this'll be implemented through the bonuses, but I am still suspicious.

 

[Darwin420]

With the extensive amount of playtesting Firaxis says is occuring, I think combat will be very well-balanced by the time the game ships. Like someone said elsewhere on the forum: cIV is by far the most playtested Civ yet.

I think the new system will work better, especially with all the different promotions our units will be able to receive. It probably won't be perfect, but what combat system (for any game) is?

 

[JavalTigar]

Its my understanding that the 1 value is part of the system to prevent spearman beats tank. I read that this system helps across the board so units would be at a disadvantage against units from the next tech levels units. For example, lets say a spear has a 3 value and a tank has a 20. Reguardless of the promotions on the spear its attack cannot defeat the tank.

 

[doronron]

The difficulty with the system is that it's numbers based rather than role based. They could've applied a more chess like model to the system. Everything is "equal" in strength but used for a specific purpose, and therefor gains a combat bonus when used in a specific manner. Units on a higher tech teir always defeat units in a lower tech teir.

 

[JavalTigar]

doronron-"Units on a higher tech teir always defeat units in a lower tech teir."

Thats not always true, I think General Custer would disagree that Calvary ALWAYS defeats Mounted Archers.

But I understand what your trying to say, I think their system could work we will just have to see.

 

[Vael]

Well, it really does depend in some cases, but I agree with you--there's no way a horseman is going to defend himself as well as he can charge down an enemy. They claim this'll be implemented through the bonuses, but I am still suspicious.

Tiles are so large (many many square miles) that you can't really say that one unit is attacking or defending at that scale. The only real situation where this would be the case would be when attacking or defending a city, and that seems to be taken into account from what I've heard.

 

[Sickman]

Thats not always true, I think General Custer would disagree that Calvary ALWAYS defeats Mounted Archers.

What makes you think they were mounted ARCHERS?
In Little Big Horn some Lakotas and Cheyennes had repeaters when riding in horseback towards Custer's cavalry who carried only single shot carbines.

So in fact natives had better tech in their use

 

[Vietcong]

doronron-"Units on a higher tech teir always defeat units in a lower tech teir."

Thats not always true, I think General Custer would disagree that Calvary ALWAYS defeats Mounted Archers.

But I understand what your trying to say, I think their system could work we will just have to see.

lol the natived outguned them!! the natives had every thing from flint locks to reapeaing rifles, a much beater gun then what custeds men had.

 

[Shivam]

well, there are a lot of modifiers to the number, based on terrain, who is in the combat, what the particular units are, and what enhancements the units have. so it's actually more balanced than just a fixed attack/defense value.

 

[Stephan Hoyer]

Tiles are so large (many many square miles) that you can't really say that one unit is attacking or defending at that scale. The only real situation where this would be the case would be when attacking or defending a city, and that seems to be taken into account from what I've heard.

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.

 

[Illini Rule]

Tiles are so large (many many square miles) that you can't really say that one unit is attacking or defending at that scale. The only real situation where this would be the case would be when attacking or defending a city, and that seems to be taken into account from what I've heard.

The battles in my mind are the big battles in the game like the battle for vicsburg or the battle of Paris not little skermishes. So someone is defending and someone is attacking in most battles

 

[Elrohir]

I'm really worried about this. It doesn't sound like this will work at all. I hope this doesn't get messed up....

 

[Louis XXIV]

What makes you think they were mounted ARCHERS?
In Little Big Horn some Lakotas and Cheyennes had repeaters when riding in horseback towards Custer's cavalry who carried only single shot carbines.

So in fact natives had better tech in their use

Interestingly, they've been able to use ballistic testing to find out where various guns were in the battle (i.e. the battle movements of the Lakotas).

 

[Elysium Dreams]

The battles in my mind are the big battles in the game like the battle for vicsburg or the battle of Paris not little skermishes. So someone is defending and someone is attacking in most battles

You're exactly right: emphasis attacking and defending. When two armies meet, regardless of who's on the offensive and who's on the defensive, each element of either army will do what it does best--which typically mean both armies will both be attacking each other, or both standing their ground and defending, or most likely, be attacking with part of the army and defending with the other part. Both sides' cavalry will still be doing cavalry-ish things (which generally means attacking). Both sides' archers will be doing archer-ish things (which, contrary to the traditional Civ A/D values, is typically defensive in nature), both sides' musket- and riflemen will be doing musket- and rifle-ish things (which generally boils down to shooting at the enemy as much as possible), both sides' pikemen will be doing pike-ish things. Which, again contrary to traditional Civ, generally means advancing at the enemy as fast as possible--which is still quite slow, mind you--as your big pointy sticks aren't doing you much good when the enemy is a couple hundred yards away. "Attacking" and "defending" as previous Civ games paint them only really make sense in the context of small skirmishes; large-scale battles are much more simultaneous affairs.

The move to a single universalized combat stat has another advantage: it means the turn-based nature of Civ no longer distorts combat results. In CivIII, a cavalry unit might attack, then sit around and wait 5 years doing absolutely nothing, putting up only a feeble defense if another unit counter-attacks. Then the enemy stops moving for 5 years, and if the cavalry unit is still around, it attacks again. This attack-counterattack model can work in smaller-scale war games, but when each tile is hundreds of square miles and each turn is several years it's just patently silly.

 

[Stephan Hoyer]

The move to a single universalized combat stat has another advantage: it means the turn-based nature of Civ no longer distorts combat results.

Absolutely. This gets especially absurd when you think of one Knight or Calvary or Tank defending against another of the same unit. These are, for the most part, fairly symmetrical battles and the warped separate attack/defense values suggests this makes a difference.

I trust that the added simplicity caused by combining attack and defense values will allow for an overall more sophisticated combat system.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You guys have aluded to it already, but I think in one sense the single value does not replace the A/D values. Instead, the single combat value simply becomes a new relative strength marker, generally climbing through the ages. A/D, on the other hand, have been subsumed in the vastly expanded promotion system.

Now, I don't recall how much of the numbers on the promotion system have been released, and am too lazy to check Civ Rules compilation, but let's say for sake of illustration that a certain promotion gives a +50% value attacking ranged units. You have a unit with combat strength 2. It gets that promotion. It is now a 3/2 unit when attacking ranged units and a 2/2 unit otherwise. Of course, that's not quite as good as a Civ3 swordsmen in some way, but this unit is probably cheaper. And it will pick up all kinds of useful abilities over its career.

It's a subtle distinction, but may help people freaking out over the single combat value. If nothing else, this system should be easier to balance.

 

[Commander Bello]

doronron-"Units on a higher tech teir always defeat units in a lower tech teir."

Thats not always true, I think General Custer would disagree that Calvary ALWAYS defeats Mounted Archers.

But I understand what your trying to say, I think their system could work we will just have to see.

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.

 

[CyberChrist]

As long as units are born with the promotions essential to accurately display their assumed function then a single strength is fine by me (ie. Pikemen better vs. Mounted units, Knights marked as Mounted units etc.).

I also hope that there are restrictions to what promotions are available to each unit (at least as an option for modders).


EDIT: I do however fail to see why/how the single strength approach should prevent the Spearman beats Battleship situation from occuring. Someone said "better tech units beat lower tech ones", but since there are no longer any Ages what determines the higher tech? I can see some real obstacles to modding in all the approaches to how this could be done.