Ranged combat? WTH?! Can someone please explain...

[Luckystrike77]

See Spear v. Tank,
you will have weakened riflemen getting killed by archer bombardment (assuming bombard can kill) You wil have positions that those archers can continue to bombard from, because the rifles can't reach them, etc.

Can't see the problem. Don't you want a balanced game?

 

[Schuesseled]

You are missing something, the MLRS are firing from 3 hexes away.

looks like 2 for a civ 4 player. because of squaree tiles, but yes it is 3 tiles away

 

[Schuesseled]

I seem to remember some certain people insisting vehemently that all gunpowder/firearms units would have bombardment attacks, and that I was a fool for thinking that only siege and support units (and naval/air) were likely to have bombardment ranged attacks.
Know any of those people, by any chance?

Saying now "oh, well maybe the archers aren't able to bombard gunpowder units" is desperate grasping at straws. Does it really seem likely that you can bombard some units but not others?

i'm pretty sure there is a rather large tech bonus to combat strengths, i saw in the video's modern unit with a stated strength of 50 having an attack score of 5,000 or something in the little combat window, so hopefully it shouldnt matter at all that pre-gunpowder units suddenly have magically long shots when technology changes. (Cause they are still all gonna die.)

 

[Ahriman]

i'm pretty sure there is a rather large tech bonus to combat strengths, i saw in the video's modern unit with a stated strength of 50 having an attack score of 5,000 or something in the little combat window

I don't think this was a tech bonus to combat. I think a tank has a strength of 50, as opposed to a longswordsman with a strength of ~10.

I think the 50->5000 was just that they were multiplying everything by 100 to get the final number to avoid presenting adjusted strengths with decimals. eg a Strength 50 units with +25% vs a strength 10 unit with +15% would be 6250 vs 1150.

so hopefully it shouldnt matter at all that pre-gunpowder units suddenly have magically long shots when technology changes. (Cause they are still all gonna die.)

It seems this will be the case.

 

[LastLegionare]

The two hex shooting archer was from a while back, and I believe a newer video or screenie hasn't shown them yet, so maybe they moved it down to one. You nevew know.

As for musketmen, I agree that they should have a weak one hex shoot. The musket was terribly inaccurate back then, no where near arrows, but they still could kill.

 

[Schuesseled]

I don't think this was a tech bonus to combat. I think a tank has a strength of 50, as opposed to a longswordsman with a strength of ~10.

I think the 50->5000 was just that they were multiplying everything by 100 to get the final number to avoid presenting adjusted strengths with decimals. eg a Strength 50 units with +25% vs a strength 10 unit with +15% would be 6250 vs 1150.

you could be right i shall recheck the video. be nice to have high tech scaling modifiers.

 

[Schuesseled]

First fight showing a combat box (there was 3 total)
---

Trebuchet (ranged attck 20) vs Pike (didnt show a summary box)

combat box - major victory 20 vs 0, modifiers blah blah..

---
Helicopter Gunship (str 50) vs Antitank gun (str 32)

combat box says 5000 vs 2144, with the antitank recieveing a 35% ish territory penalty

last one was frigate battle, 15 vs 0

Maybe your right ands its just multiplied because hardcore pc gamers are obviously scared of decimals. Then again maybe not, too early to tell.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I don't think this was a tech bonus to combat. I think a tank has a strength of 50, as opposed to a longswordsman with a strength of ~10.

The question is what does that MEAN, How many Longswords would it take to kill the tank (if the tank just sat there and didn't heal?... or rather how many Longswords could the tank kill if it attacked them 1 at a time and neither side healed.

If there model was Properly simple it would be ~5
I doubt that seems like too small of a tech effect.

Possibly it is something like 25 (effectiveness~=str^2)

or even something like 125 (effectiveness ~ Str^3)


As for Rifle v. Archer

the thing with Rifle v. Archer is it is an even Worse version of Tank v. Spear because in Tank v. Spear most of the time the spear died.
In Rifle v. Archer, the Archer will not take damage because it outranges the Rifle

 

[Grey Fox]

Why didn't they use longbows in the trench warfare of WW1, seems like it could have been effective to me

 

[Ahriman]

combat box - major victory 20 vs 0, modifiers blah blah..

Bombardment, not melee.

combat box says 5000 vs 2144

Melee.

last one was frigate battle, 15 vs 0

Bombardment.

If we see melee battles where the combat box values aren't inflated, then there might be something going on. Until then, it seems amazingly unlikely.

If there model was Properly simple it would be ~5

In your opinion. This is by no means an objective measure of a "proper" combat system.

There is absolutely no reason why this kind of ratio needs to be there, wildly uneven matchups of big swarms of low strength units against a lone high strength unit aren't something we're likely to see.

I doubt that seems like too small of a tech effect.

There's no evidence that there is a "tech effect". You're just inventing things.

the thing with Rifle v. Archer is it is an even Worse version of Tank v. Spear because in Tank v. Spear most of the time the spear died.
In Rifle v. Archer, the Archer will not take damage because it outranges the Rifle

Its not worse, because the rifle doesn't die! It just takes a tiny bit of damage.

 

[Earthling]

Know any of those people, by any chance?

No, I don't know what you're referring to, maybe off the beaten path of this thread. But I know I've still been quite anti-1upt and this is just another natural offshoot of stupid/simplified mechanics that many didn't think of and could cause some grievances.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

There's no evidence that there is a "tech effect". You're just inventing things.

Ahriman the "tech effect" is the fact that the Tank is Str 50 and the Longswordsman is Str 10.
The reason the game designers GIVE them those stats is because the Tank is a higher tech unit.

So.. Given the amount of Extra technology I had to invest to get a Tank v. a Longswordsman, I should get a more Effective unit...
The Question is how Much more effective
Why not just put my effort into production+gold and make the number of Longswordsmen that will do as much damage as a tank would before dying.

Basically the Question is
1 Tank ~ X Longswordsmen

What is X?.. the answer is in the Str, but it is buried by a complicated combat mechanism

A tank is Probably not 5x as good as a Longswordsman because that would not be a good enough reward for the technology that you invested to get the tank (which I referred to as the "tech effect" as in high tech unit should be better)

The Str Implies that it is 5x as good, but it almost certainly isn't, that amount is too low.

The combat mechanics in Civ 4 made this a very complex question.... Modern Armor v. Mace. 40 to 8.. even if you ignore the first strike it is complicated, but it is somewhere amout 25 (a square relationship)
The "damage done" was a fairly complicated calculation... Tank does 2x as much damage/shot, Mace does 1/2.
The "too hit" odds were a bit simpler... Tank hits 5x as often as the Mace
Then there is the uniqueness of how damaged unit strength was handled.

Hopefully their combat model is MUCH simpler than that... Civ 2's combat model wa already too complicated.
They may have removed the problem of damaged unit Strength



A Simple model if they want a Square relationship is

Units take damage = Strength of the enemy unit/ The unit's Strength * some factor

Throw in a Random multiplier for whichever side gets the disadvantage (they take 2x damage) and you have a simple system that allows a Tank (50) to be 25x a good as a Longswordsman (10) which seems like a reasonable amount.

Its not worse, because the rifle doesn't die! It just takes a tiny bit of damage.

Who says it is a Tiny bit? and who says the Rifle won't die?

Civ 1-4 Spear v. Tank
Spear has small chance of surviving
Tank has a small chance of dying

Civ 5 Archer v. Rifle
Archer has a 100% chance of taking 0 damage
Rifle has a small chance of dying

 

[Ahriman]

Ahriman the "tech effect" is the fact that the Tank is Str 50 and the Longswordsman is Str 10.
The reason the game designers GIVE them those stats is because the Tank is a higher tech unit

Precisely!

All the differences in tech are captured in the unit strength. This is my point. There's no such thing as unit A that is strength 10 but low-tech, and unit B that is strength 10 but high-tech and somehow performs differently.

Basically the Question is
1 Tank ~ X Longswordsmen

No. A flat terrain grudge-match makes no sense as a direct comparison of value, because:
a) More weaker units take up more space, cannot concentrate power
b) more weaker units have higher maintenance costs
c) more weaker units will suffer complete kills on their component parts and lose strength, whereas the strong unit can lose 80% of its health and then retreat
d) more weaker units have XP gain diluted over them, so level up slower
etc.

If it takes 5 strength 10 units to kill 1 strength 50 unit, then the strength 50 unit is massively better than 5 strength 10 units.

and who says the Rifle won't die?

Given that we know a full health rifle won't die from a single artillery bombardment, we can be confident that it won't die from a single bowman bombardment.

[Also note; longbows are most likely an English UU replacement for the Crossbow, not a core unit anymore.]

Rifle has a small chance of dying

What makes you think that bombardment has any chance of getting a complete kill on a full health unit? We have no evidence that there is any chance of dying unless the rifleman is already massively damaged. It appears that bombardments of equal tech units do generally less than 1/3 health in damage.

 

[MrBanana]

Have you ever thought that maybe modren units would be pratically immune to archer fire.

Oh, and look how 16-19 century armies worked. You don't fire a volley of bullets up, you fire level with the ground. If there is a slighest hill, you can't "bombard" with rifles. A bow and arrow still can.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Well lots of people ask for a bit more realism in each edtion of Civ, so you would think after 20 years (is it been 20 years now for Civ?) and the 5th incarnation of Civ, the makers, and Sid himself would know how to add some more realism a bit more in Civ now. Again as above, I think most people are getting upset with the Spear vs Tank scenario and this problem would have been eliminated by now.

5-10% of the community asks, really loudly, for more realism. Most of us long ago realized that this was not a realism oriented series.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Precisely!

All the differences in tech are captured in the unit strength. This is my point. There's no such thing as unit A that is strength 10 but low-tech, and unit B that is strength 10 but high-tech and somehow performs differently.

No. A flat terrain grudge-match makes no sense as a direct comparison of value, because:

yes it does... Higher Str units Do have the advantage that 5% dead is healable up to 100% but 5% of a low tech army's units can be rebuilt to 100% as well.

Then it just depends on the difference between healing+rebuilding

a) More weaker units take up more space, cannot concentrate power

They can 'concentrate' power over time... again this depends on the healing mechanic
Cheap healing->better for stronger units

b) more weaker units have higher maintenance costs

Says who? and I sure hope not... a Tank should cost more maintenance than a Longswordsman (It probably will cost the same, but it shouldn't)... it didn't in Civ 4 because ther jury rigged the Inflation system.

c) more weaker units will suffer complete kills on their component parts and lose strength, whereas the strong unit can lose 80% of its health and then retreat

effectiveness depends on healing mechanic

d) more weaker units have XP gain diluted over them, so level up slower
etc.

XP does favor survive+heal (large unit) over die+rebild (small unit) but Small units usually get more exp from the combats

If it takes 5 strength 10 units to kill 1 strength 50 unit, then the strength 50 unit is massively better than 5 strength 10 units.

That Entirely depends on the Healing process... and if that is what you think, then why the objections to a simple combat system... that works that way
Ie Str 10 unit does 20 hp damage to Str 50 unit (while Str 10 unit takes 100 hp damage)
With slight Random modifier as to how much damage is done.

Given that we know a full health rifle won't die from a single artillery bombardment, we can be confident that it won't die from a single bowman bombardment.

How do we know, we have seen units die from bombardment.. not knowing if they are full health or not.

It appears that bombardments of equal tech units do generally less than 1/3 health in damage.

Where did you get that? (not that it doesn't sound reasonable)

 

[Earthling]

5-10% of the community asks, really loudly, for more realism.

To be fair, another 70% of the community ask for the game to be turned into a clone of another game or copy something from whatever their pet game is, from World of Warcraft to Halo, and another 10% who think they are smarter and know better say it should REALLY be an RTS

 

[Ahriman]

They can 'concentrate' power over time...

How do they "concentrate power over time" (whatever that means) any differently from a strong unit?
The point about power concentration is obvious; for 5 units to attack a unit simultaneously, they take up 5 units of space. When space is at a premium, this is a utility cost. A single higher strength unit that takes up only a single tile can thus concentrate power more effectively.
This isn't an arguable point.

effectiveness depends on healing mechanic

Do you really think that healing a unit is not going to cost less than rebuilding the unit from scratch? I don't think you actually believe this, so why do you argue the point?

it didn't in Civ 4 because ther jury rigged the Inflation system.

Yes it did. Units in later years cost more than earlier years, but that was connected to the year, not the unit. An archer in 1980 had the same upkeep cost as a tank in 1980.

How do we know, we have seen units die from bombardment.. not knowing if they are full health or not.

We have never seen a full health unit die from a single bombardment. We have seen units not die from a single bombardment. We have seen a "major victory" bombardment do ~30% damage.

Where did you get that?

Screenshots and movies and reports from people who watched the demo.

To be fair, another 70% of the community ask for the game to be turned into a clone of another game or copy something from whatever their pet game is, from World of Warcraft to Halo, and another 10% who think they are smarter and know better say it should REALLY be an RTS

And then there are the 20% who invent ridiculous statistics.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

It also doesn't make sense that it takes twenty years to walk from one tile to the next at the start of the game but at the end only one, but they scaled time to technology advancement so unit movement doesn't match it. So distance and time isn't scaled to units because they needed to scale it to something else.
So in conclusion, everyone who made the game is aware that archers, cannons, and modern artillery don't all fire the same distance, and they don't care because its not important to the game.

 

[deanej]

Gameplay > realism, but in civ5 the difference in arbitrarily large (that's infinity for those that haven't taken Calculus yet).

In layman's terms, realism was thrown out the window.