Simplified Combat in Civ4

[wit>trope]

What do you think about the simplified combat in Civ 4? They seem to be making it more complex with the unit upgrades but they have simplified it on a fundamental level by taking away the Attack and Defense values. Now units just have one single value for both attack and defense. What's the rationale behind this? I hope it's not part of an effort to "dumb it down" This makes it more like an RTS where units don't have separate Attack and Defense values.

 

[joethreeblah]

What do you think about the simplified combat in Civ 4? They seem to be making it more complex with the unit upgrades but they have simplified it on a fundamental level by taking away the Attack and Defense values. Now units just have one single value for both attack and defense. What's the rationale behind this? I hope it's not part of an effort to "dumb it down" This makes it more like an RTS where units don't have separate Attack and Defense values.

I don't think the game is dumbed down. They needed to do something about combat.

I didn't even have the patience to wage a full scale war against a power as big as mine in the modern era. It's fun if it's smaller and you can wipe them out, but when you have 20,000 units, and everyone has railroads, it is just grueling.

 

[civaddict098]

yeah i think the values that are the same kinda stinks, because some things like say pikemen for instance are supposed to be defensive, especialy against mounted men, i dont think having only one combat value is a good idea

 

[playshogi]

I didn't even have the patience to wage a full scale war against a power as big as mine in the modern era. It's fun if it's smaller and you can wipe them out, but when you have 20,000 units, and everyone has railroads, it is just grueling.

DITTO!!

I think that given a thread complaining about wild animals getting 5 pages, complaining about the unrealistic nature of civ combat should get 50 pages. Let's hope they got rid of the unfun element of bringing stacks of dozens of units to face dozens of defenders and then resolving the combat with 1 on 1.
(after first pounding the defenders with your artillery).

 

[tcjsavannah]

so what's going to be the combat value of a lion if we assume the combat value of a warrior is 1? 1/3?

 

[Phoenix_56721]

They made combat more complex in Civ4, think about all the unit promotions 40 in all, how do you upgrade you're units, make them better in mountians, jungle or maybe better at city raiding? Forget about giant SOD's in Civ4 its not going to be that easy, you will have to send your forces in carfully taking terrian that you're units that are best suited to fight in. Also better proctect you're artillary their not at the bottom of a huge SOD anymore! Barracks play a more important role in Civ4, now instead of just making vetern troops they give exp. point to units in those cities, better build barracks sooner if you want to start building a elite army! They mantioned that there are even Civic options you can pick that will help give exp. points to units along with some wonders.

Also they changed how units fight by more or less giving them attack and defense bonus's, for example spearman arent very good at defending cities anymore, but their great at fighting horseman, Achers are the best early city defender but in the open they will be easy prey to horseman or swordsman!

Combat has really been improved and is going to be much tougher!!!

 

[Evie]

yeah i think the values that are the same kinda stinks, because some things like say pikemen for instance are supposed to be defensive, especialy against mounted men, i dont think having only one combat value is a good idea

Pikemen, ironically enough, were the OFFENSIVE mainstay of quite a few army circa the XV-XVIth centuries.

Think about it, which is the most effective weapons when marching on an enemy? The one that's effective two feets away (sword?) or the one that's effective ten feets away (pike)?

The "special" effects of such things as pikes are MUCH better represented by a bonus against cavalry than by any sort of them being better on defense than offense : an army of pike attacking another army of pike, assumign all other things are equal (ie, equal experience, leaders, no terrain advantage, no fortification) should have even odds of winning.

Which they don't in Civ III

 

[Lillefix]

so what's going to be the combat value of a lion if we assume the combat value of a warrior is 1? 1/3?

They probably have bonuses against animals, the same way that units had bonuses against barbarians in civ3. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.

 

[warpstorm]

because some things like say pikemen for instance are supposed to be defensive, especialy against mounted men

And Firaxis said that these type of effects are in the new combat system.

 

[alms66]

What do you think about the simplified combat in Civ 4? They seem to be making it more complex with the unit upgrades but they have simplified it on a fundamental level by taking away the Attack and Defense values. Now units just have one single value for both attack and defense. What's the rationale behind this?

The rationale is simple:
There is no such thing as a defensive weapon.

If it's a weapon, by it's very definition, it is an offensive tool. I, for one, never understood the point of seperating the values in the first place and am happy they finally unified combat values - at least a little bit.

 

[HourlyDaily]

The "special" effects of such things as pikes are MUCH better represented by a bonus against cavalry than by any sort of them being better on defense than offense : an army of pike attacking another army of pike, assumign all other things are equal (ie, equal experience, leaders, no terrain advantage, no fortification) should have even odds of winning.

Which they don't in Civ III

Good point.

Combat is something we'll get used to I'm sure.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

What the consolidation of unit strength into a single value has done-most of all-is to eliminate the ridiculous anomoly where, if you had two identical units going against each other, who would win would almost always come down to who 'attacked' and who 'defended' (given the time scale of turns, this in itself is a ridiculous concept-battles tend to be massive free-for-alls, where a seperate attacker/defender simply doesn't exist).
For instance, if one tank attacks another, you could bet your life the attacking tank would win, because its Attack Strength was way higher than its opponents defense strength. Now, two tanks will have an even chance of winning-all other things being equal. It also removes the need for artificial designation of 'offensive' or 'defensive' units-given that almost every unit in history was actually used to do both-though it might be more effective at one or the other.
Which of course brings us to the point already raised, which is that individual units will be specialised in their attack/defense against certain units and/or in various terrains. If you ask me, the combo of a consolidated combat score and differential bonuses/penalties in specific conditions, you allow for a much more realistic and flexible combat system-one far better than that of Civ2 or Civ3. Of course, those making the complaints would realise this if they actually read the entirety of the available info-and not just the stuff which they can spin into the most negative context possible (something which I believe was done quite a lot in the transition from civ2 to civ3 as well).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Sullla]

Combat won't be simpler in Civ4. Quite aside from the promotions, certain units will be better at doing different things than other units. For example, we know that spears will be strong against horses (they must get some kind of a bonus against them). Also, in those recent MP reports it was stated that archers are now best used as city defenders. (Yeah, I know, still getting used to that idea myself. )

In short, that doesn't sound simpler to me. We'll find out soon enough though.

 

[Bungus]

Seperate attack/defense stats made sense to me on two levels. Strategy: it encourages combined arms. Realism: Battles and time lines in civ have always been abstract, but combat in the games is represented by attacking of defending large areas of land. Take infantry for example: soldiers can definately hold down a position much more easily than they can assault it, where they would be suseptable to sniper fire, traps, breaks in communication that could throw of the coordination and timing of the attack, etc. On defense the same soldeirs just have to stand behind something and shoot the enemy as they advance, and will have a much easier time if they're concealed or dug in.

But I'm open to the new system, if only because of the inclusion of so many other elements, like the promotion systems. Just hope its not gimmicky.

 

[Evie]

Soldier being better able to hold a position than to take it is MUCH better represented by terrain bonuses, fortified bonus, river bonuses, etc.

An army caught in the open with littel to no prepared defense will have almost no defensive advantage (may even be at a disadvantage against an opponent charging downhill) ; an army defending a mountain fortress on the other hand will be well-nigh impossible to dislodge without vastly superior numbers.

What IS true is that some unit are more defensive or offensive *because they are better suited to combat on certain terrain* which are better suited for offensive or defensive maneuvering (ex, cavalry in plains, infantry in cities). Mobility can also be a factor. Both of these factors *are* present in Civ IV from what we know.

So what we have in the end is a game where, instead of always having one best defensive unit and one best offensive unit (and a handful of specialty units), you not only have the specialty units, but to top it off, which units will be the best for attacking or defending will depend on the location you intend to attack or defend, the type of enemy you will be facing, etc.

It encourages combined arms far more than Civ III's system (which encouraged the 2-units army)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Exactly right Oda!!! The funny thing, Bung, is the reasons you cite (namely time representation) is exactly the problem I have with seperate attack/defense values. After all, why should an infantry unit be automatically able to win against another infantry unit-just because it is the one being attacked. I mean, unless its fortified, and in the appropriate terrain-as Oda has already suggested. I think the main problem is that all people are seeing is the single combat value, wheras in fact many units have a defacto 'seperate' attack and defense rating, depending on circumstances which, IMO, is a far better way of representing things than a permanently seperate Attack/Defense rating.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Robi D]

yeah i think the values that are the same kinda stinks, because some things like say pikemen for instance are supposed to be defensive, especialy against mounted men, i dont think having only one combat value is a good idea

In civ4 strength wont be a hard and fast number like the attack and defence values were. Like you said pikeman will be better against munted units then other units. For example say a pikeman with a strength of 20 is up against a cavelry with strength with a strength of 40. The pikeman will do a lot of damage, even win because its especally good against mounted units. Now lets say the same pikeman is up against a tank with the same strength, 40. It will do little or not damage to the tank (ie scratch and dent the paintwork a bit) because its utterly useless against armored units. This system i believe is a lot better than the current one

 

[mag827]

It seems to me that combat is actually more complex in civ4 with all those individual unit promotions, instead of the much simpler attack/defend values that we are so used to. What makes me worry is how we are going to manage our army when the number of units go up to 100+, to micro-manage their unit promotion status, or to find THE unit that has attended the "elite" status etc. I have another concern: invididual solider's status can't be represented as "regular" "veteran" "elite" as before in the unit menu, but as the amount of promotion they received. When we have a big stack of soliders it will be difficult to represent their individual promotion concisely. Are these promotions expressed as icons (40+ icons...) or numbers? (e.g. +50% attack for solider with amphibious assault promotion on a ship. But this number will keep changing when they move) Do we have screenshots for this?

 

[evil_linus]

It seems to me that combat is actually more complex in civ4 with all those individual unit promotions, instead of the much simpler attack/defend values that we are so used to. What makes me worry is how we are going to manage our army when the number of units go up to 100+, to micro-manage their unit promotion status, or to find THE unit that has attended the "elite" status etc. I have another concern: invididual solider's status can't be represented as "regular" "veteran" "elite" as before in the unit menu, but as the amount of promotion they received. When we have a big stack of soliders it will be difficult to represent their individual promotion concisely. Are these promotions expressed as icons (40+ icons...) or numbers? (e.g. +50% attack for solider with amphibious assault promotion on a ship. But this number will keep changing when they move) Do we have screenshots for this?

good point! this could be a real pain in the ass if they've not manage to implement this nicely - but if it is a problem I think this is something the beta-testers surely have complained about.

 

[Jaybe]

Yes, finding dispersed units with specific promotions could be problematic unless:
1) promotion status is visible when viewing a stack (as opposed to individually inspecting each unit in the stack);
2) you can do a search for particular promotion units and they are hilighted somehow;
3) there really AREN'T that many units in a game; or
4) (perhaps a worse option) you rename units as they are promoted.