There's just ONE stat for units? Uh oh...

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well I had held out hopes that, this time around, we would see a system where everyone MOVED first (based on some kind of initiative system) then all resultant combat was resolved. It doesn't look as though that is happening though, which is VERY unfortunate !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[SenJarJar]

i HATE the rock paper sisours thing!!!!!
ee was a horible game.. as are all combat systems with the r p s system!!

play the game rise of nations, its good and well polished, but the combat sucks! becus tanks and hourse mounted units bouth fall under the umbreala of "calvery". so since a machin gun *witch has an advantage agisnt infantry on foot* is weak agisnt tanks cus ther armored... but since tanks and calvery fall under the same catagory, that means that mgs are allso weak aginst house men and knights!! i hated that!!! having machin guns killed by a knight in armor!!
allso pikemen upgrade to granadears*slower fireaing guys with muskets* since pikes have an atvantage agisnt calvery, that means guys with crapy muskets allso have an atvantage aginst tanks!! the system was just bad!!

the game is only good tell the enlitgement eror, once u get tanks, plains ect. the game is ruined!

@Vietcong: Hello. Based on what you have argued here, I can't help but think that you have misunderstood the rock-paper-scissor system. Fundamentally, RPS means that for any choice you make (Your Rock) you will create an advantage (His Scissor) for yourself while at the same time you assume a disadvantage (His Paper). This way, there will always be a flaw to your strategy which your opponent will be able to counter. So the existence of this disadvantage (His Paper) becomes the incentive for you to counter his counter (by getting your own Scissor to counter his Paper).

The reason good wargames benefit from RPS is mainly that it causes players to diversify both strategy and force constitution. So for instance because C3C does not use RPS, you can win all battles simply by employing the strongest offensive and defensive weapons at your disposal and amassing just those two units. If C3C had employed RPS, then the game would have had some combination of units that could have easily destroyed a force that was constituted by just two different types of units, making for a more complex and realistic wargaming experience.

In your post, you made a short list of why RPS is bad. But what you actually listed does not prove that RPS is bad; rather, what you proved is that the game you are referring to (ee?) implemented the RPS mechanic with ludicrous flaws. More specifically, the main problem with the way the game you are referring to implemented the RPS is that the designers fooled themselves with equivocal words like "Cavalry" and "Armored." The designers did not understand that they were using "Cavalry" to mean both "horse-mounted" and "tank"; likewise they did not understand that they used "Armor" to mean both "tank" and "personal armor." This shows not that RPS is bad, but that the game designers simply failed to notice they were committing equivocation. In short, using equivocation causes ambiguity causes confusion causes bad games.

A simple solution to that game could have been to separate these two categories of weapons into: "Armored vehicle" (meaning tank); "Armored soldier I" (meaning leather, chain, and plate protected personels); "Armored soldier II" (meaning kevlar); "Armored mounted" (meaning knight); etc. This would have made it clear that spearmen would have no advatage over tanks but an advantage over knights.

[I DELETED SOME STUFF HERE]

I don't know if Civ4's designers will commit the same mistake as these other game designers you mentioned did, but if they did, it would take only a little sweat to fix it because these are the types of problems that players will be able to correct through modding, as long as someone mods in a correction to the system. None of this is hard to figure out if you give RPS a chance. And IF DONE PROPERLY, RPS makes for a more enjoyable wargaming experience

 

[Dearmad]

That's a good question, how does that work out... probably the computer just chooses the best defender from your stack to each attack as they come, I would imagine.

 

[Jaybe]

SJJ, Vietcong was referring to the game Rise of Nations by Big Huge Games. Brought to you by the Firaxis defector Brian Reynolds. His defection created the fiasco of discontinuity in developing Civ3.

Yes, Rise of Nations uses RPS. Yes, it is a mess once you get to industrial age.

 

[RoddyVR]

I'm wondering how exactly combat will play out then... are they returning to the old style where if one unit is defeated in a stack, the entire stack goes down? Because, from where I'm looking, a stack of units vs. another stack of units means that the advantage still goes to the attacker since he decides what marches on the defender.

Do both attacker and defender choose which units are going to do battle if, say, three units inhabit the same square?

He's attacking me with horsemen, so I choose spearmen!
He's attacking with spearmen, so I choose archers!

How will that be worked out?

- Rep.

why just one unit vs one unit? why not whole stack against whole stack.
if my stack is all paper, then it will get relatively stronger if yours is mostly rock or weaker if yours is mostly scissors.

 

[Wolfwood]

I think the first question is: _Can_ you have more than one unit in a square anymore?

 

[uberSoldat]

I think the first question is: _Can_ you have more than one unit in a square anymore?

If troop stacking was not allowed the defender would have an unfair advantage .He could just pick off units one by one with no fear of counter attack in the opponents turn (unless the units have 2 movement pts and there is no restricting terrain like mountains) .
Let’s hope it’s not that way.
ppl who have seen the gameplay videos, could u please confirm whether troops can be stacked or not?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I have seen the video, and I am afraid that it doesn't clarify things. All of the combats Soren engaged in were one unit versus one unit, but that may have been a deliberate DEBUG scenario designed to prove a point, with as little clutter as possible. Guess we will just have to wait for further news from Firaxis.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Jaybe]

Since it has been said that artillery bombardments might affect any or all units in a stack, it would be fair to say there CAN be multiple units. They wouldn't say such a thing to decieve their fans (or anyone else).

 

[JavalTigar]

"You'll also find that city managers and more intelligent stack movement will speed things up as well. " - IGN-Civ4 impressions

You always have stacks in cities so as ubersoldat said the attacker would be at a disadvantage.

One of the other articles talked about grouping units. They also talked about trying to branch out to other players. Real time strategy games are very popular (if not terribly named) and I think that is Firaxis target audience. I bet they are vamping cIV to be geared to intrest them. So my feeling is that there will be a system like RTS where Ctrl+1 thru 0 will be allowed so you will have 10 'armies' max. or something similar.

I hope they make combined arms worthwhile cause I can honestly say I have never built certain units in C3C (archers, destroyers, helos, paratroops, etc) cause the investment was not worth it on a bang for your buck stand point.

 

[Desertsnow]

So basically its an advanced rock,paper,sissors. Reminds me of Empire Earth.

Actually it reminded me of Pokemon. Sorry, old Nintendo fanatic here.

 

[Guagle]

thats good, will allow more varied armies.

Well, I am not sure. The problem with rock-paper-scissors is that there is one perfect tactic with it : always build a balanced force that includes all available troop types. This way your army always has the counter to whatever your opponent may throw at you.

The situation gets more interesting when one or both sides don't have access to the same techs/or resources required to build every unit. If one side lacks access to some units then it becomes a kill fest, as one side can always be countered.

 

[ironduck]

It would be interesting to see a video of stacks attacking each other to clarify all this..

With all this customizing of units I thought the bonuses were rather small. It seems like it's something like 10%, 20%, and 30% bonuses in upgrade levels. But going from conscript to elite in Civ3 is a much larger 'bonus' change. Two energy points to five energy points is a heck of a difference, these small Civ4 percentages seem almost symbolic in comparison.

 

[JavalTigar]

I guess the ultimate question is how much promotion is allowed? Is it only 2 levels?

Or can you have a Elite Samurai with extra movement, amphibious, flanking and attack city bonus?

 

[SenJarJar]

The situation gets more interesting when one or both sides don't have access to the same techs/or resources required to build every unit. If one side lacks access to some units then it becomes a kill fest, as one side can always be countered.

But that was the way it was in C3C, a game without RPS. So this is not an argument against RPS: it is the peculiar nature of a Civ map to allow for unfair starting locations because this reflects our geo-political reality. But Firaxis seems to be suggesting that they have implemented gameplay elements into Civ4 such that there will be ways of getting around the problem of lacking strategic resources. For instance, there may be a way to produce oil consuming military units by learning a tech which would eliminate the need for oil, or something like that.

 

[SenJarJar]

Well, I am not sure. The problem with rock-paper-scissors is that there is one perfect tactic with it : always build a balanced force that includes all available troop types. This way your army always has the counter to whatever your opponent may throw at you.

@Guagle: You have not described a problem that is specific to RPS. In C3C for instance, a well-balanced force could consist of a stack of mod armor + mech inf, two units whose main purpose is to counter each other. You get two enemy stacks of these two units and you have the same situation as the problem you described above.

This is the way it should be when you have two equally diverse and powerful armies. In these cases, luck becomes an important a factor as anything else. This is realistic.

But this kind of clean situation which you seem to be imagining will not always be the case during war. This is because fronts in Civ are so long and there are so many vulnerable cities to protect, armies inevitably become strung along and de-concentrated during both an invasion and defense. It is in these unclean and unpreparable battle situations that RPS increases the tactical feel of the game, thereby increasing the value of the wargaming aspect of games like Civ.

 

[Guagle]

@Guagle: You have not described a problem that is specific to RPS. In C3C for instance, a well-balanced force could consist of a stack of mod armor + mech inf, two units whose main purpose is to counter each other. You get two enemy stacks of these two units and you have the same situation as the problem you described above.

I agree that this often happened is civ3, and that's actually the way i build armies: include nearly every troop type so as to have a balanced force that can react to multiple situations. Now and then i do build very specialized armies (fast attack or siege, etc...) to handle specific cases. What I'm saying is that with rps, specialized armies could be doomed if the counter is strong enough (like 100% bonus). If this is the case then players will only build balanced armies thus less diversity in armies.

I also agree that this kind of 'clean' situation, as you put it, doesn't happen often. I'm curious about certain features of combat, such as bombardment and promotions. These can certainly improve combat a lot if well implemented, by adding variety and tactical options.

 

[Mr. Hyperbole]

I have a question re: a unit's 'special abilities'...if you upgrade - for example a spearman to a pikeman - does that unit retain its 'special abilities' or does it, in essence, start from scratch?