Poll Should healing be free

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Without the battle to the death of the previously civ titles combined with all the problems the ai has with one unit per tile the risk of losing anything at all in combat is smal for alot of players.

The ai will sucide its units often get massacred by ranged units and finished of with melee units the ai is incapable of fighting back effectly.

However this is not about how to balance ranged units this is about the healing aspect of the game.

Free healing means as long as your unit is not killed even if it got 1hp left out of 100 you will eventually be able to get that unit as good as new for only the cost of having that unit skipping some turns which matters very little in this game.
Moreso because you heal so fast in your own territory add in healing while defending ,ranged units and camping becomes very effective vs the ai.
You allready get exp and eventually stronger units if you keep them alive, free heal is just overkill and a thing thats belong in the past then every battle was a risk.

 

[notyourtypical]

What?

 

[Ryika]

Uhm. Healing is okay. I like healing.

 

[Arcaian]

He's not saying no healing - he's saying the exp rewards of the battle means you get a reward anyway, so should not allow the healing for free. Gold cost, or some sort of cost associated with it.

 

[Feurisson]

So you mean taking away the free healing would make battles more realistic and interesting, and the AI would be more of a challenge? I'm not sure about the last part at least, although it does seem a bit unrealistic that dead soldiers apparently can be brought back to life (or where do they come from?)

 

[Ryika]

I like free healing.

 

[myclan]

I think the best answer is both. Some damage can be healed, while some need to be recovered at home and cost something

 

[bcaiko]

It already costs something: the opportunity cost of not attacking or moving.

 

[Browd]

While still paying gpt maintenance on a unit you can't use

 

[BrokTheFanatic]

I understand your point but I don't think any minimal changes would do much as far as gameplay, while a high cost would be annoying (like if they go below 50% you have to spend 1/4 of their unit cost to restore them).

The better change is to make AI combat changes. The AI could do better with some minor to modest modifications, IMO. It is better in a few ways but it seems that it needs a component that initially drives it to destory enemy units and plunder, before it tries to take a city (like if the enemy has many ranged, it attacks units before it attacks the city). On the higher difficulties they can easily bring triple your numbers and they should do a lot more damage than they do as far as unit destruction and plundering go. If they AI did that, wars would always be a big set back but instead they tend to mob on a nearby city, wasting half their attacks on its walls.

I will comment that making a good AI for a 1 upt game is non-trivial but making it 'ok' is usually possible with modest effort. If Firaxis doesn't want to pay someone to do it then I ask that they instead provide more tools for players to create AI mods. This only requires an 'AI interface' which is already implicit to the civ code, just make the functions explicit (well, it isn't quite that easy but any coder will understand what would have to be done and it isn't all that difficult (this would allow a number of things including players being able to code and compile AIcombat.dll programs)).

I really hope that happens.

 

[Fluffball]

I have abstained from voting because i think it is a complex issue that i can't really say yes or no to.

While i have thought about some sort of healing/reinforcement cost system, preferring something like each pop point gives you one reinforcement point which can be spent on repairing units, partly to reflect the advantages than large nations have in manpower and ability to rebuild armies (think Russia in WW2) in a game play sense it's not that simple because i can easily see in game play this meaning that larger nations will always win simply by attrition. It would probably need some sort of balancing mechanic like having an impact on happiness if you take heavy losses and / or a reduction in unit experience.

 

[reddishrecue]

Healing should still be free because other units can often kill units sometimes. If anything, there should be an option that allows you to pay to heal a unit instantly if needed.

 

[number51]

As stated earlier, no action and GPT maintenance are enough.

Not realistic, think this example:

1700AD damaged Musketeer enters Paris to heal for three turns. 30 freaking years! More than a generation later, their kids will be fighting by the time the unit is healed. Even if a unit is in enemy territory, decades later with no action and still getting gold, they're all better, or retired or something.

That's expensive enough.

 

[Sturmgewher88mm]

As stated earlier, no action and GPT maintenance are enough.

Not realistic, think this example:

1700AD damaged Musketeer enters Paris to heal for three turns. 30 freaking years! More than a generation later, their kids will be fighting by the time the unit is healed. Even if a unit is in enemy territory, decades later with no action and still getting gold, they're all better, or retired or something.

That's expensive enough.

Imagine this scenario with a warrior at 3500 BC

 

[Primacide]

"we've been camped here for six generations, grampa. Why?"

"Well it all started when your great great great uncle Jed got stuck in the leg by a spear. We've been waiting here till he's back on his feet."

"He's dead, grampa..."

"Don't sass me kid. We're short timers now. Only eighty more years and we are gonna kick the crap out of that hoplite."

 

[Moriarte]

As stated earlier, no action and GPT maintenance are enough.

Not realistic, think this example:

1700AD damaged Musketeer enters Paris to heal for three turns. 30 freaking years! More than a generation later, their kids will be fighting by the time the unit is healed. Even if a unit is in enemy territory, decades later with no action and still getting gold, they're all better, or retired or something.

That's expensive enough.

Would it be more "realistic" if said musketeer asked for higher wages if he manages to "heal instantly"? A crate of wine perhaps?

 

[Sturmgewher88mm]

I'm loving this fold out

 

[Makavcio]

I guess damaged units could cost more to maintain but otherwise any other system would be counterproductive, methinks. Complication for no practical gain.

 

[Avatan]

Double maintenance of healing units? As in count for two units because of non-linearity.

 

[Timhotep]

If you like, you could think of HP as "combat effectiveness", a destroyed unit having been either routed or killed outright. Allowing for some time to rest, regroup and reinforce to restore effectiveness is perfectly reasonable.

The combat system in Civ is sufficiently abstract that having realism as a goal is already out the window. In terms of gameplay, I agree that the opportunity cost is enough.