This is why I love the Civ4 combat system.
Just because you have the tech lead doesn't mean "game over" on the battlefield.
I don't why there are so many players fussing about "spearman vs tank".
We KILLED the spearman vs tank issue from Civ3. It's dead dead dead as a doornail!
I once saw a Greek Hoplite (3 def spearman) kill off FIVE TANKS in a game of Civ3.
That was RBCiv3 Epic Fifteen "Soyuz", and the hoplite was fortified on a mountain.
That kind of result is not possible in Civ4.
In Civ4, you may get a spearman (more likely a longbow in a city on a hill) to kill ONE tank.
ONE. That's it. One.
The unit strength values for that are 28 for a healthy tank...
6 plus probably 200% in bonuses (18 net, plus a First Strike) for the Longbow.
In Civ3, the hoplite in the mountain is +100%, and fortify is plus 25% more.
What's that? A 7 strength net? Or is it 8? Vs a Tank at 16.
One 3-str-base hoplite, effective 8 str, beat FIVE 16-str tanks in a row!
In Civ4, that would be ONE, tops.
Beat one, then wounded and get slaughtered by the next.
The reason is that wounded units lose both Strength and Hit Points.
This is so awesome for game balance, it's tough to describe in a few words.
Weaker units can destroy larger ones by ganging up on them.
Soren found a way to simulate "group combat" while still executing the battles one to one.
Each successive unit "piling on" to the same target gets MUCH better odds than the last...
...because a wounded unit loses strength geometrically.
100% health unit does 100% damage to its foe in each combat round that it "wins".
It also has 100% of its hit points left, so it can survive more rounds.
A unit engaging who has 75% of max Str does only 75% damage on each successful combat round.
THIS USUALLY MEANS IT NEEDS TO WIN MORE TOTAL ROUNDS TO DESTROY THE NEXT TARGET.
Meanwhile, not only does it need more rounds to win, but it has fewer hit points, too.
Meaning that it can survive fewer "lost" combat rounds.
AND on top of that, the odds of winning each round are measured by strength.
The efficacy of wounded units goes down fast. At 80% strength, they are still potent.
By the time they get down to 60%, though, they are seriously hurting!
People whine about "unrealistic" combat but this is as realistic as it gets!
In real life, units that have taken 40% losses are typically categorized as "destroyed".
Their effectiveness as a cohesive, well-led fighting force is gone.
Many of their key leaders will be dead. Equipment wiped out. Panic setting in. Etc.
But more important than the realism is the game balance.
People complain that "army units are gone".
NO! EVERY GROUP OF UNITS ON THE BOARD NOW ACTS AS AN ARMY UNIT!
They can combine their effects, piling on one target or stack.
It's !@#$! brilliant.
Anyway...
The Greeks used their Artillery first, to peel off the "toughest" hit points off the top of my stack.
Then they simply drove the meat in to the grinder until they wore us down.
It's as if an "army unit" of about fifteen Greek Cavs, Artillery, and Marines...
...attacked our "army unit" of three Armor and three Mechs, in the Hills.
Their losses: thirteen units, give or or take.
Our losses: six units, 100% casualties.
ONE UNIT TO ONE UNIT, the luck factor is almost completely gone in Civ4!
Yet you can combine weaker units in a series of attacks and still be effective.
You have to be willing to take some losses, though!
This opens up the gameplay by orders of magnitude.
I think it's the foundational cornerstone of the whole system.
ON WITH THE SHOW
Alexander's armies continue to press their attack.
Now they are coming at our second stack with Cavalry:
Those units rolled luckily and withdrew.
Where's the Artillery? Without some Splash Damage, this is a much tougher fight for them!
Marines:
Cavs:
More Cavs:
Yet Still More and More Cavalry(R):
Infantry:
More Infantry:
Yet Still More Infantry(TM):
AND THEY ARE STILL NOT DONE YET!
"What's the cure?"![[pissed]](/images/smilies/pissed.gif "Pissed [pissed]")
:
