Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[Roland Johansen]

I cut "air superiority" out. You're right, although there is still a little room for arguement.

About fighters killing each other : it happens.
Not a lot, but it happens. Often enough when you're on "equal" terms.
What almost never happens is saminf shooting down planes AFAIK.
But if you try to have "air superiority" from the ground, you're obviously wrong, don't you think?

Yes, I don't mind that the SAM inf (or Mech Inf) doesn't shoot down fighters. They should primarily be a unit that defends against air strikes and thus damaging the air attacker and preventing bombing damage is ok. An occasional lethal encounter would be enough. But fighter-fighter engagements (and attacking bomber-defending fighter engagements) should be far more lethal to avoid making it attractive to even attack heavily anti-air defended cities.

I would propose that fighter-fighter engagements are lethal in 50% of the engagements and that the defender wins in 2/3 of the engagements while the attackers wins in 1/3 of the engagements. Now the lethality is below 10% (according to the test I did in vanilla 1.52 a half year ago). That doesn't deter any air attack.

 

[tomart]

You should be able to defend against this kind of attack and if the AI has 8 anti air units protecting a city, I would like to lose 4 of my units, while the AI loses 2 fighters or something like that. That would stop me from attacking heavily anti-air defended cities. Losing only 1 air unit will not.

What's wrong with losing air units. We lose ground units and ships, why not airplanes?

Yeah, losing some air units would be ok, you'd just build replacements. But i find almost the same effect with the current system, they're healing instead of building new. And in any bombing calculation, you'd allow for your expected losses and then bring enough extra to do the necessary damage. So we're back to the massive bomber stack again.
Put another way, it's not deterring me, it's making me bring more stuff.

 

[cabert]

just one more answer then I stop it (we have run a bit offtopic didn't we?)

The air strategy isn't very complex. The oversimplification there cuts down on a major option : prioritizing targets.

Say you have 8 fighters to defend a city (which is a lot, but you said you'd have 8 fighters to just "take the hits").
You may hit 8 attacking units. Provided they also send in fighters, you're not even sure you don't get hit
On the other hand you may be lucky and let the 8 opponent fighters pass, and hit 8 bombers

What I would like is giving priority to intercept either fighters or bombers.
Meaning that you lower drastically the odds to intercept the other kind while climbing higher on the one you target.
I would also like "counterinterception" priority option on fighters. Meaning you could give a fighter the option to cover a bomber.
I'd also like a "shoot for the kill" option. Meaning that once a plane is "intercepted", it gets shot at by all available fighters until it dies. Those units cannot intercept anymore, but you've got a higher killing ratio.
...
So many possibilities, so little implemented in civ.

As a conclusion to this last not quite newbie issue, I'd say
- the game isn't unbalanced on this topic, since facing 28 units with 8 units on your part isn't really "equal strength". With 28 fighters defending a tile, you'd have a lot more success on defending it.
- air combat is very lightly implemented, without any good tactical options. Don't look for very deep tactics, there aren't any.



There we would be back to paper scissors rock that made this civ version so good.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Yeah, losing some air units would be ok, you'd just build replacements. But i find almost the same effect with the current system, they're healing instead of building new. And in any bombing calculation, you'd allow for your expected losses and then bring enough extra to do the necessary damage. So we're back to the massive bomber stack again.
Put another way, it's not deterring me, it's making me bring more to the affair.

But when the opponent creates such good Anti Air defense network (many fighters) that your bomber losses would surpass your bomber production, then you're back to a real war where you need every part of your military to achieve victory.

If bombing a city defended by 10 fighters (from that city and neighbouring cities) would result in losing 4 fighters/bombers and 6 wounded fighters/bombers while killing 2 enemy fighters (all dogfights), then it would not be an attractive option to attack this heavily anti-air defended city. Yes, if your stack of bombers is big enough, you'll still crush the defence. But at least it will have cost you something other than healing time.

 

[tomart]

The air strategy isn't very complex. The oversimplification there cuts down on a major option : prioritizing targets.

What I would like is giving priority to intercept either fighters or bombers.

I would also like "counterinterception" priority option on fighters. Meaning you could give a fighter the option to cover a bomber.
I'd also like a "shoot for the kill" option. Meaning that once a plane is "intercepted", it gets shot at by all available fighters until it dies. Those units cannot intercept anymore, but you've got a higher killing ratio.
...
So many possibilities, so little implemented in civ.

- air combat is very lightly implemented, without any good tactical options. Don't look for very deep tactics, there aren't any.

Yes, I'd like to give my bombers fighter cover.
There are good, complex wargames that give you the options you seek, and many others. But Civ is trying to cover basically all of human history, in an easy-to-play package. You can't get into tactical detail, for any particular war or aspect; the whole would suffer. I've played all kinds of wargames, with all degrees of difficulty, and yet i find myself back with Civ, enjoying its balanced simplicity and grand strategy.
Speaking of prioritizing targets: I'd like to be able to have a Spy take out a particular building in an enemy city. Surely that's doable - and Scotland Yard might be an early choice.

 

[Raisin Bran]

Hey everyone, I am new to this web site so please forgive me if this is the wrong place for this question or if this question has been answered earlier. My interest is in senerios for civ 4. I would love to play a WWII senerio...or even a few of them...example - Western Front, D-Day and French Liberation, Pacific Theater, etc. I am working on my own but the senerio builder for civ 4 is proving difficult for me to work with...is this just me? any advice for making it easier? Most important is there anywhere or anyone who has WWII senerios I can download? Thanks everyone.

You could Dowload the MaxRiga Mod which is made specially to play his WWII scenario.

Link

 

[Roland Johansen]

just one more answer then I stop it (we have run a bit offtopic didn't we?)

The air strategy isn't very complex. The oversimplification there cuts down on a major option : prioritizing targets.

Say you have 8 fighters to defend a city (which is a lot, but you said you'd have 8 fighters to just "take the hits").
You may hit 8 attacking units. Provided they also send in fighters, you're not even sure you don't get hit
On the other hand you may be lucky and let the 8 opponent fighters pass, and hit 8 bombers

What I would like is giving priority to intercept either fighters or bombers.
Meaning that you lower drastically the odds to intercept the other kind while climbing higher on the one you target.
I would also like "counterinterception" priority option on fighters. Meaning you could give a fighter the option to cover a bomber.
I'd also like a "shoot for the kill" option. Meaning that once a plane is "intercepted", it gets shot at by all available fighters until it dies. Those units cannot intercept anymore, but you've got a higher killing ratio.
...
So many possibilities, so little implemented in civ.

As a conclusion to this last not quite newbie issue, I'd say
- the game isn't unbalanced on this topic, since facing 28 units with 8 units on your part isn't really "equal strength". With 28 fighters defending a tile, you'd have a lot more success on defending it.
- air combat is very lightly implemented, without any good tactical options. Don't look for very deep tactics, there aren't any.



There we would be back to paper scissors rock that made this civ version so good.

This thread doesn't really have a central topic does it? And the discussion does result in the knowledge that massive air attacks are unstoppable by the AI. Some newbies might not know this. Ok, I'm stetching it a bit, I know. I guess the discussion will stop soon anyhow so no need to go to another thread.

The reason why I was considering a massive air attack is because that is the thing that a good air defence should be able to defend against in a limited way. Usually the attacker goes with a big stack at one defensive point and thus the defender is at a disadvantage and will probably lose if it cannot predict the attackers attack point. However, the defender can still kill some attackers and make the attacker hurt. With an air based attack as it is implemented in civ4 at present, the losses for the attackers are too low. 8 defending fighters is based on the idea that the fighters from neighbouring cities will also defend the city. With 2-3 fighters per city, you could easily get at 8 defending fighters from the city that is attacked and the neighbouring cities. That will not be enough to stop the massive air attack, but if aircombat is more lethal, then it will at least result in some losses. This way it will be similar to a land based attack. The medieval defenders are unlikely to stop an attack of 8 trebuchets + 7 macemen + 2 knights + 2 pikemen + 2 crossbowmen. But if there are good defenders in the city and some counterattackers (catapults + macemen +knights), then the attack will hurt for the attacker.

Oh, and I agree completely that combat in civ could be improved massively without making it a war game. I'm just hoping for a stack attack ability (where units truely fight in groups) for the next version. It would limit the amount of clicks to attack a city and would not make civ a wargame but it would create good strategic options.
This stack attack option should then also be applied to the airplanes so that the attack force of 20 bombers + 8 escorting fighters would meet the defence force of 8 fighters. Both would lose some units and the bombers would do a certain amount of bombing damage. And all of that with 1 click (after grouping the units).
Someone made a mod that accomplishes this in a limited degree by the way.

I have to stop the discussion for now as some friends are coming over.

 

[a4phantom]

At the moment, the balancing point seems to be that bombers are rarely destroyed when intercepted vs. they can't kill but can only damage up to 50%. RJ makes a good case that thsi overpowers bombers, especially in the hands of a human player who knows how to concentrate his strategic bombing. The problem with letting bombers be shot down a greater percentage of the time is that each individual bombing run usually doesn't do enough damage, in my view, to justify losing a significant number of planes every turn (bombing a crowded tile obviously does more damage). I could be wrong mathematically, and by the time I get bombers I'm far ahead so I can't say how this plays out at higher levels.

Possible compromises:
1. Interceptions are more likely to kill aircraft, but fighters (which really include single engine bombers) can kill ships.
2. Interceptions are more likely to kill aircraft, but even the intercepted bombing run does some damage.
3. Wasn't there a SAM battery or some kind of AA improvement to cities in Civ3? That could have a small chance of intercepting every single attack on the city, so if you attack with 20 bombers simultaneously, it has 20 small chances of intercepting.
4. Aircraft heal at half rate. Aircraft are extremely complicated and precise machines, and although you might come in on a wing and a prayer it's harder to jury rig them to fly well than to fix/replace up some rifles or even tanks. Also pilots need extensive training. So an air squadron could reasonably take longer to recover losses.
5. Make aircraft more expensive. This would reduce the number you put up, unless you sacrifice your ground forces. It would also make the rare shoot downs more significant.
6. This won't happen, but go back to the Civ3 model for artillery and naval bombardament so that aircraft aren't the only units that can weaken enemy units without actually engaging them in potentially lethal combat.
7. When you bomb a city with aircraft, there should be a chance of destroying them on the ground. If you bomb a city the turn you declare war, this chance should increase (maybe only for the first city you bomb, although the Japanese caught our planes on the ground in the Philippines hours after Pearl, stupid MacArthur).


As far as realism goes, aircraft are nerfed by their inability to destroy roads, and the inability to interdict units in movement (a consequence of the turn based game with no easy solution).

 

[frankcor]

I have to stop the discussion for now as some friends are coming over.

And we weren't invited?

Thanks for the high level of discussion here!

 

[linzamin]

If you have a scout set as "automated search", how do you locate him without manually searching thru the entire map? Pressing ENTER does not find him when cycling thru the units.

Also, is it a good practice to send a warrior along with a scout in case Barbarians attack him?

 

[frankcor]

You can go to the Military Advisor screen (F5?), scroll down your list of units and click on Scouts. The locations of all your scouts will be shown on the map. Click on the one you want (most folks don't have many scouts at one time) and the Military Advisor screen will close and you'll be looking at your scout.

 

[pixiejmcc]

Are the palace and trade routes the only non-tile sources of commerce? And is bureaucracy and the harbour (which modifies trade route yields) the only modifiers of commerce?

 

[barbu1977]

Can scouts capture empty cities?

 

[Zophos]

If you have a scout set as "automated search", how do you locate him without manually searching thru the entire map? Pressing ENTER does not find him when cycling thru the units.

Best way I know of is to use the military advisor screen (F5). You can at least find out where all of your scouts are located (on the small map) and go looking in the right area for 'em. I never automate scouts, so I don't have any better advice.

Also, is it a good practice to send a warrior along with a scout in case Barbarians attack him?

I wouldn't. Most of your scouting is done before the barbs become a big problem (animals, yes, but Scouts do OK against them). And a Warrior would slow the scout to half-speed. If you're going to do that...why not just send a Warrior alone?

 

[Welnic]

Are the palace and trade routes the only non-tile sources of commerce? And is bureaucracy and the harbour (which modifies trade route yields) the only modifiers of commerce?

I think that those are the only non-tile sources of commerce. I think that all of the other non-tiles sources of things directly give you gold or beakers or whatever, not commerce.

There are technologies, wonders, and civics that modify the number of trade routes. There are also technologies, wonders and civics that modify the commerce that certain tiles output.

 

[Sisiutil]

I think that those are the only non-tile sources of commerce. I think that all of the other non-tiles sources of things directly give you gold or beakers or whatever, not commerce.

There are technologies, wonders, and civics that modify the number of trade routes. There are also technologies, wonders and civics that modify the commerce that certain tiles output.

Perhaps--commerce multipliers like banks, markets, and grocers do affect shrine income, however.

 

[Welnic]

Banks, markets, and grocers modify gold output, not commerce. If they modified commerce, they would also increase science output. Since they modify gold output, they affect shrine and specialist gold output.

 

[Roland Johansen]

At the moment, the balancing point seems to be that bombers are rarely destroyed when intercepted vs. they can't kill but can only damage up to 50%. RJ makes a good case that thsi overpowers bombers, especially in the hands of a human player who knows how to concentrate his strategic bombing. The problem with letting bombers be shot down a greater percentage of the time is that each individual bombing run usually doesn't do enough damage, in my view, to justify losing a significant number of planes every turn (bombing a crowded tile obviously does more damage). I could be wrong mathematically, and by the time I get bombers I'm far ahead so I can't say how this plays out at higher levels.

It is true that if you increase the lethality of interception, that the use of single bombardment runs becomes less usefull. However, I personally think that is a dumb way to use airplanes. It's no use to wound a unit if you can't kill it. Since I've seen what Blake's BetterAI team has managed to achieve for the AI, I think it would be clearly possible to make the AI use bombers in large numbers at spots close to a land attack. I think, I'll suggest it in his mod-thread.

However, I think bombers could use some extra power if you increase the lethality of interceptions. In real life bombers destroy factories, so why not give them an extra mission 'attack buildings' that have a chance to destroy or damage buildings (damaged buildings would require a certain number of hammers to become operational again). And of course, if you give that mission to bombers, then artillery type units should also be able to do that. Also bombers should be able to destroy roads and destroy population. This way you could really bomb an enemy into the stone age. But if the lethality of interceptions is around 50% (defender or attacker wins in 50% of interceptions), then you can defend against it.

I'm principally against the ranged bombardments of artillery type units like in civ3 because that doesn't have a counter like the interception missions of fighter aircraft. You can't defend against it in the attackers turn.

I'm in favour of a stack attack where the artillery type units would work in combination with the other units in their stack. If the other units in the stack are destroyed by the opposing stack, then the artillery type units will be next to defend against the other stack. One big battle between stacks where first front line units die and the stronger stack will overrun the artillery positions of the weaker stack. Some units might retreat and live to fight another day.
(this is the model used in Dale's combat mod).

And we weren't invited?

Would you have come all the way to the Netherlands? Wow!

Are the palace and trade routes the only non-tile sources of commerce? And is bureaucracy and the harbour (which modifies trade route yields) the only modifiers of commerce?

As others have mentioned, there are many buildings that modify research and gold and culture. These three components are derived from commerce. But the only modifiers of commerce are the ones mentioned by you and Welnic. The Collossus increases sea commerce, the Great Lighthouse and the castle (since Warlords) increase the number of trade routes. Some technologies increase the number of trade routes (currency, corporation). A VN resolution increases the number of trade routes. Free market increases the number of trade routes. The harbour increases the output of trade routes. The printing press technology increases the output of villages and towns, the free speech civic increases the output of towns. Emancipation increases the growth speed of cottages and thus increases their output through time. That's about it, I guess.

 

[Welnic]

Well, if you are going to list them, Electricity adds +1 commerce for windmills and +2 for watermills. I didn't list them because I knew I would never get them all.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Well, if you are going to list them, Electricity adds +1 commerce for windmills and +2 for watermills. I didn't list them because I knew I would never get them all.

Ah, damn...