Problem with Promotions...

[Elras]

Hi All,

Unit Promotions Good or Bad?

The more experience a unit gets the less you wanna use it for
fear of losing it! You ever been scared to use a Great General Unit to
attack another full strength unit in fear of losing it? I have, which kinda
defeats the purpose (and come on guys, where's the honour of using
GG units to only attack weakened units?)

This seems a bit weird historically speaking as I'm pretty sure the
Elite Units always drew the tough assignments?

Civ4 has many many pluses..the User Interface is the best I've ever seen.
But a more complex (more satisfying) mechanism for conducting battles
is really needed. i.e a Proper way of engaging all units at the same time
instead of the sequential headbanging that goes on now. Something like
Birth of the Federations Tactical Battle Engine (when it worked
obviously )

A tactical battle would show the reasoning behind various military doctrines
(combined arms,etc) without resorting to the paper-scissors-rock mechanism
that Civ4 uses. Hell Great Generals on a Tactical Map would really show their
worth! A Great General could allow a player more tactical options/battle
strategies unavailable to armies without a general?

Some thoughts.
Elras.

 

[carl corey]

I have started a discussion thread about Great Generals and a test game - both are linked in my sig. The one thing most people seem to agree on is that a heavily promoted unit isn't worth much. He'll probably die in a 95% battle just to spite you. But there are lots of other alternatives to Great Generals, and I haven't yet tried all of them. Head to those threads for more info.

I don't have an opinion as to how changes to the battle mechanism would improve the game, as there are enough things in Civ to keep me interested without a more complicated battle system. For that one I'm playing chess.

 

[Elandal]

You just have to get over losing units. The old veterans will some day find their fate on the fields, but they will be rememebered and their contribution to the empire revered. Nobody is immortal.

 

[Sisiutil]

I'd rather the battle system didn't get too complicated. Civilization is not, or should not be, primarily a war game. It's one element of the game, and a very significant one, but not the only one. My concern with increasingly-complex battle systems is that the emphasis of the game will shift. Some players think this has already happened.

 

[Blaarg]

Looks like Napoleon agrees with your thoughts about not sending in his best troops for fear of losing them:

The Imperial Guard was originally a small group of elite soldiers of the French Army under the direct command of Napoleon I, but grew considerably over time. It acted as his bodyguard and tactical reserve, and he was careful of its use in battle.

 

[dalamb]

You just have to get over losing units. The old veterans will some day find their fate on the fields, but they will be rememebered and their contribution to the empire revered. Nobody is immortal.

You need to carefull protect a couple of multi-promotion units to qualify for military wonders: Heroic Epic (level 4) and West Point (level 5).

 

[Tatran]

I know how it feels to lose a Great General at 98.7% combat odds.
Somehow I had the feeling this would happen, so I wasn't surprised
it did happen.

 

[ratrangerm]

I usually avoid the agony of losing my most experienced units by sending in less experienced units to soften defenders up, then when remaining units are really weakened, your chances of winning that battle are far greater and it's worth sending your most experienced unit in (it is possible to get the odds up to 100 percent more than some might think).

As far as when they are attacked, ideally, you want your most experienced units to be upgraded first so they have the best chance of surviving attacks.

Taking care to position your best units in favorable territory also helps.

 

[cabert]

I know how it feels to lose a Great General at 98.7% combat odds.
Somehow I had the feeling this would happen, so I wasn't surprised
it did happen.

Is it worse than losing 2 elite artilleries at 98%+ odds in a row
If you don't want to lose your GG totally, play the alexander scenario.
When the alexander bearing unit loses, he will respawn a bit later (he was wounded, and needed to rest )

 

[Elras]

Hi All,

Thanks for the replies.

To expand on some points, I think any tactical battle segments needn't
be mandatory (e.g. a bit pointless for 1 on 1 unit battles) the game should
allow a player to "auto resolve" simple battles/skirmishes but a big battle
involving loads of units would be kinda cool as a cutaway tactical battle.

Hannibal at Cannae...oooh I'm getting tingly all over

I also agree that there's more to Civ4 than just the war element...but I feel
(playing a few a games with Warlords) that a few early battles and
eliminating your 2 closest opponents really sets you up for a certain victory
later on. I feel that once a peaceful player gets behind..in tech esp...your
basically b*ggered. Some brainy git will build that spaceship
before you!

And finally a question that been bugging me for a while...the level limits for
units to allow building the Heroic Epic & West Point...once you've reached
the unit threshold..can you still build the wonders even if the unit dies
beforehand? i.e. you have a level 4 unit...this green lights Heroic Epic...
your cities are too busy building aquaducts to stave off plague to bother
with writing ponsy heroic poems...your L4 units die (against a unpromoted
heavily damaged warrior unit out in the open plains...*sigh*..)...can one of
aquaduct building cities then still build the Heroic Epic or have you blown
your chance?

Cheers
Elras.

 

[cabert]

^^You heroic soldier will be remembered, and you'll write heroic poems about how he fought bravely for his life when a treacherous assasin poisoned him in his sleep.
You can still build the HE (same for WP, which is more a problem, with a high level unit required)

 

[Sisiutil]

This is probably why I only use one GG as a warlord, for a non-combat (Medic III) unit. I've lost units at high odds (>95&#37 every now and then, everybody has, and losing a precious GG this way would be painful.

I prefer to use GGs in cities as Military Instructors or for Military Academies. The MIs in particular allow me to produce high-XP units without having to switch to and run the "war civics" (Vassalage and Theocracy). This is especially helpful if my leader lacks the spiritual trait.

 

[dalamb]

I'm guessing GG is a warlords-only unit? I only have the basic game, which I'm far from mastering. Do I have to be an expert warmonger before trying Warlords?

 

[Sisiutil]

I'm guessing GG is a warlords-only unit? I only have the basic game, which I'm far from mastering. Do I have to be an expert warmonger before trying Warlords?

Yes, Great Generals are Warlords-only.

You don't have to have mastered warring to enjoy the expansion pack. Skill at war is more relevant for moving up levels than trying out the expansion pack.

That being said, the Warlords 2.08 patch (which I highly recommend applying) does improve the AI. Some people found it necessary to drop a difficulty level after the patch to get used to the increased challenge of the AI.

 

[Infantry#14]

I usually attach my great general to a mounted unit. For Cavalry, you can get up to 90% withdrawl rate if you have flanking 1+2, tactics. Too bad you cant get to 100% withdrawl, then you dont have to worry about it's survival when he attacks.

The overall GG promotions are weak anyway, perhaps someone can make a mod so that they have the ability to ignore the enemy def bonus, where only raw strength decides the battle