Strength vs attack and defense

[GGitchell]

I was just wondering how many prefer the strength formula for combat and how many prefer the separate attack and defense values?

I prefer having a base strength over att and def.

 

[Ramesses]

I personally am not a big fan of having a base strength with modifiers.

I think the more stats exist, the better. No modifiers used, just opposing stats. And each unit type tends to have the same strong point and weak point to maintain the rock-paper-scissors effect.

Part of such a system would look like follows:

General Stats:
Power --> Armor

Melee Stats:
Reach --> Dodge (Spears have high Reach, Horses have low Dodge)

Ranged Stats:
Range <--> Range (Determines First Strike advantage)
Accuracy --> Evasion

And essentially the Combat Odds would show you which stats you're at an advantage, and which at a disadvantage, and the more advantages you have, the better your odds.

 

[Bowsling]

That is one good idea, Ramesses. Maybe you could add Morale to the general stats, working a bit like war weariness, and redcoats take less impacting morale hits?

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Strength/mods > attack/def.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Both work well, but since I know the current system very well, my vote goes to Base Strength + modifiers

 

[Glassfan]

But now you can send out Aircraft Carriers to attack enemy shipping {without any planes at all}

 

[i_diavolorosso]

There should be more than just a strength.
I like ramesses idea.And there should be moral too

 

[Unconquered Sun]

But now you can send out Aircraft Carriers to attack enemy shipping {without any planes at at}

By ramming smaller ships while yelling "This is ATHENS!!!!"

 

[Kiwi Tyrant]

I personally like the values incorporated into the FFH2 mod where you have attack and defence stat's.

eg. Archer 2/4. Base value of attack 2 and defence 4. Added promotions can then alter this to your own tastes.

 

[PieceOfMind]

A system with att/def values can have modifiers too, so it's weird a couple people called it att/def vs. strength+modifiers.

I don't see any problem with a strength number instead of using att/def values. If two units both have att/def values of 4/1 then it seems strange that if they fight out in the open the one that attacks first will almost always win. IMO it makes more sense for them to be both considered the same strength for battle because they are both the same unit.

However, when some units are clearly better at defending positions (e.g. archers on a bare hill) it makes more sense to give them a defense value and the attacker an attack value.

 

[GGitchell]

I think the biggest thing that needs to be changed is there should be a script written in the computer programing that makes it so helicopters can't be plucked out of the sky or even shot out with an arrow. The weakest unit capable of being able able to destroy it should be the infantry. Plus the same with tanks should apply.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

I think the biggest thing that needs to be changed is there should be a script written in the computer programing that makes it so helicopters can't be plucked out of the sky or even shot out with an arrow. The weakest unit capable of being able able to destroy it should be the infantry. Plus the same with tanks should apply.

CIV is not a tactical game, it's a strategic one. "Losing" a gunship is not necessarily the result of direct fire.

 

[pi-r8]

you know i tried playing civ 2 today, and the attack/defense system just seemed so gimicky and stupid to me now that i'm used to civ 4 combat. For one thing, it means that the best way to defend a city is with attack units like catapults and cannons, because they can just own anything that gets near the city. You also get stand-off situations, where two cannons are 1 square apart, and whichever one moves next to the other will be destroyed, just because it's defending. That's incredibly lame. And of course the stupid civ 2 AI falls for it every time...

 

[Milly]

I prefer just strength compared to attack and defense, though I wish certain things were changed (such as defensive retreating).

 

[Antilogic]

you know i tried playing civ 2 today, and the attack/defense system just seemed so gimicky and stupid to me now that i'm used to civ 4 combat. For one thing, it means that the best way to defend a city is with attack units like catapults and cannons, because they can just own anything that gets near the city. You also get stand-off situations, where two cannons are 1 square apart, and whichever one moves next to the other will be destroyed, just because it's defending. That's incredibly lame. And of course the stupid civ 2 AI falls for it every time...

I remember booting up a mod I found here for Civ2, and thinking exactly that.

As it was mentioned above, having separate (and wildly different) attack and defense values makes zero sense for a unit out in the open. If you have two 4/1 units facing each other, each on grassland tiles with no funny business like rivers or fortification, why does the attacking unit get such a huge advantage? It's not like every single time you launch the attack, your opponent's troops are sitting in their camps drunk and scratching their nuts. And vice-versa. It's not like a piece of terrain in Civ (not including mods) represents a few square miles and you are maneuvering your troops for a specific assault on a weak point. Each tile in Civ represents a huge swath of land, hundreds of square kilometers, where a campaign is fought out over the course of a year or so, and then you get the results afterwards.

For example, say I have a Standard-sized map of the World. Earth has a surface area of roughly 510,072,000 sq. km. If I use most of the map generator info from here: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/reference/map_scripts_guide.php, then I have roughly 84 x 52 = 4,368 tiles. That means each tile represents ~116,800 sq. km. (!) Even a double-sized map, with 168 x 104 = 17,472 tiles, each tile still represents ~29,200 sq. km. Why should my unit get a massive advantage for attacking your unit in that tile? What special factor makes my moving into that tile so unique as to warrant an additional bonus or penalty?

Having a base strength with special terrain modifiers and the like (like archers getting a bonus in cities or on hills) makes the most sense to me because it reflects a reasonable baseline (troops equipped with melee weapons have these characteristics, troops with guns have these, mounted have those, etc.) while giving you a chance to customize each unit. Can you still customize with A/D type units? Sure, but the reasoning above is why I think the base strength approach is better.