unbalanced combat

[Gogf]

There is a big difference between the Civ3 and Civ4 combat systems.

Units in Civ3 lost just HP, whereas units in Civ4 lose both HP and strength. Strength in Civ4 is much more powerful, but because of the way the new combat system works, injured units are still weak. This is honestly a beautiful solution to the problem.

Whereas it was hard to argue in Civ3 that wounded units represented a damaged unit (they still had the same strength) instead of just one with less people, in Civ4 the combat system represents this. Notice how tanks look kind of beat up as they are damaged? This damage makes them easier to destroy.

 

[Dealll]

Let's look at the combat from a more realistic standpoint.

This is a turn based game right? And battle is done on a turn based system? What "realistic combat" is done with turns? Syncronized combat isnt combat.
This is a game. I get the point of "archer vs tank". But check it out. My archer is hiding up in a tree. You drive into the woods, i drop down, open the hatch, and stab you with an arrow. I dont even shoot the arrow, i just stab you with it. Your dead. You want realism? Make is so when my archer kills you, i get his tank!

Like someone said, youve got tanks vs archers, youve Really got nothing to complain about, unless you used the editor to give yourself units, in which case, you really have nothing to complain about. Realism from units appearing out of thin are and all.

How come my cows dont take dumps? How am i supposed to grow shrooms without my cow patties? Oh wait!! This is a game. If you want realism, try the sims, i hear they even make you go to the bathroom. Dont forget to wipe.

 

[Vulpes]

Units in Civ3 lost just HP, whereas units in Civ4 lose both HP and strength. Strength in Civ4 is much more powerful, but because of the way the new combat system works, injured units are still weak. This is honestly a beautiful solution to the problem.

I was under the impression that all units had 100hp regardless of their 'injured' strength. So that you weren't being double-penalised for being injured.

 

[Bertilsson]

...
When I send 4 mechanized infantry units into battle against a city full of 2 archers, 1 axemen, and 1 spearmen I don't expect to get routed. Certainly not after using stealth bombers and jet fighters against them.
...

Yeah right!

And in my last game I lost 300 gunships to an injured warrior without promotions. When I sent reinforcements they were all killed and the warrior conquered every city in the game!

The combat system is broken!!

 

[AJG]

I was under the impression that all units had 100hp regardless of their 'injured' strength. So that you weren't being double-penalised for being injured.

It is my understanding from reading Apolyton forums, that a modern armor battered down to 4 out of 40 strength, starts the fight with a mere 10 hit points, while the incoming intact war elephant starts with the normal 100 - the elephant probably only has to win one random roll to achieve victory.

 

[Sidewinder00Q]

One of the things I did in Civ III was to mod the HPs of all the units. I found that this all but eliminated the Spearman defeats Tank, had it almost happen a couple of times but never actually saw it happen.

All Ground units in the Middle Ages and Beyond got an extra HP.
All Gunpowder based units got an extra HP.
Armored Units got an extra HP.
Galleys lost a HP.
Iron ships (Ironclad and above) gained a HP.
Modern Naval Vessels gained a HP.

All Long range units (Longbowmen, and Gunpowder units) gained a bombardment rating. (First Strike)

The End result: Regular Tanks have 6 HPs while Regular Spearman have 3. If the spearman can get six hits before the tank can get three...the Spearman deserved to win.

 

[GenocideBringer]

Gunship vs Archers: Gunships have to land occasionally to refuel, etc. Gunships also aim their weapons with radar. They cannot lock on to archers. Seeing as a unit of archers probably has a helluvalot more people than a unit of gunships, I can see a unit of archers (probably a few hundred archers) versus a unit of gunship pilots (since their gunships would be useless against human targets, and the MOST they owuld have would be sidearms), I can see the archers winning.


Tanks on plains: You still can't see well at night. They could approach them. Since the tank drivers need food, rest, etc. they can't CONSTANTLY be ready for combat.

etc.


I'm not saying it's LIKELY that the old unit would win vs a full strength new unit, but it's possible.

 

[syneris]

I'll ride my bike a million miles and you drive a car a million miles. If i keep my bike serviced with new parts whenever it's needed and you never service your car which will go out first? More advanced means more maintanence.

 

[syneris]

Your legs and your heart.

Sorry but cross-country cycling is a very good way to stay fit. A car without oil is a very good way to get stranded in the middle of nowhere

 

[Eigenvector]

I like the suggestion someone made about obsoleting units from different eras. That to me would solve the issue.

Most of the people here are bending over backwards to justify a highly unlikely situation which tells me that they use those tactics in their own games - massed combat using cheap old troops against the smaller number more expensive modern vehicles.

I also see a lot of hypocritical arguments about how "Civ isn't a combat simulator" but yet argue that "the archer shot an arrow into a critical section of the helicopter" or "the elephant was attacking at night when the tank crew were all sleeping". It isn't going to ruin my day if they don't fix it, I can try to mod it out of the game by obsoleting older units. I feel that classical era units facing a modern army would inevitably turn and run or like the workers do - surrender, which is how the situation should have been handled in the first place in my mind.

 

[Kilroy]

A seriously wounded unit in this combat system can be beaten by anything.

As it should be.

 

[Kilroy]

It is my understanding from reading Apolyton forums, that a modern armor battered down to 4 out of 40 strength, starts the fight with a mere 10 hit points, while the incoming intact war elephant starts with the normal 100 - the elephant probably only has to win one random roll to achieve victory.

Your understanding is wrong.

 

[bky1701]

This was one thing that got me myself. There is no reason to upgrade your units - it changes little.

So much for being a technologically advanced militaristic civ.

 

[Crist2000]

Ok. Suppose I have a modern age unit stack. Infatry, tanks, artillery and choopers. My stack is being attacked by enemy artillery unit. Waht will happen? Yes, that is right. Collateral damage will be appleid to whole stack including choppres. Artillery fighting gunships? Come on! Gimme a break! If it would be possible in real life the "Desert Storm" operation would end some other way then.

 

[Ranos]

Tank strength 5 (after being damaged) attacking a 6 strenght Longbowman will lose on average. Depending on combat modifiers, the Longbowman will win. 5 vs. 6 will lose whether it is an Axeman attacking or a severely damaged tank.

As far as the Chopper goes, it is all about averages and the roll of the digital dice. Occasionallly, but rarely, the 6 vs 40 will win. It will be rare, but it will happen. All it takes is a single arrow piercing the fuel line and the chopper will go down.

 

[Harbringer]

I thought they were going to fix this? I am just about to finish a game and am cleaning up some of the last Islamic and French cities. They have longbowmen, I have mechanized infantry. For some reason I still lose troops when attacking cities. Yes I know city defences give an advantage, blah blah blah, but come on - since when is an archer going to phase the advance of a mechanized infantry platoon?

And I actually saw a war elephant take out an advanced tank! What the heck! I don't care if the tank was down to 5 out of 40 - that elephant wouldn't have had a chance! Dangit, balance the combat system better. There's no reason for a modern army to get chewed up by guys wearing bronze breastplates and throwing pointy spears

Here's another one I saw - archers taking out attack choppers! I don't care if that archer had "20% percent city defense and 30% forest and jungle defense and 1st strike" Its a bow and arrow, not much of a threat to a chopper carrying Hellfire missles or a 20mm chain gun. That chopper was at full strength!

Ahh...yuk, I dont mean to be picky but if you EVER say mech infantry in a platoon again I will hunt you down and kill you. Second, the graphics are just reps of numbers man, chill.

 

[_speedy_]

Artillery fighting gunships?

Choppers have to land some time - I'd be very surprised if there were never any cases of landed choppers being destroyed by NVA artillery in the Vietnam War.

 

[rickb]

You know, I think what annoys me most about posts like this isn't the initial post itself but the silly counter posts like "oh an arrow hit the fuel line", which is even more inane. A military unit out in the field will disintegrate into nothing even if not in contact with the enemy. The civ combat system gets the overall "feel" more or less right without actually modelling things like logistics or single combat between units. You can't keep your units continuously in combat fighting everything that comes their way regardless of how powerful the unit is. When a badly damaged gunship unit loses to an archer I don't think of the helicopters actually being destroyed by the archer, just that the unit is now no longer combat effective due to you not properly maintaining the unit so it is removed from gameplay. To get it back, you have to build a new unit. It's called abstraction people, you'd think Civ players would understand that concept. I also like the random factor, war is a risky business, you need to prepare for things going completely to hell, no plan survives first contact with the enemy, like losing that one last unit when you tried to take over the city without waiting to heal or for backup.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Very good points. I have not played Civ 4 yet but I'm well aware how silly combat was in previous versions of the game. I know that in Civ 3 at emperor level, the player automatically loses the 1st combat. Even when the odds are +50% and more in his favour. Oddly, if the game is saved before attacking and reloaded, after the inevitable 1st unit dies, then a replay of the same attack is much more reasonable.

I don't know how you got this impression from CIV3, but I can guarantee you that you are completely and utterly wrong. The CIV3 combat resolution has gone through a lot of extensive tests by the players (I know, because I was involved in that 3 or so years ago), and it was proved in each and every test, that CIV3 is 100% fair and 100% random in combat. And that's true for each and every difficulty level, there's absolutely no cheats in CIV3's combat.

I wonder if that is something programmed into the game as it is almost 100% sure that the 1st attack fails or results in a very badly beaten up player attacker - or defender. Another interesting thing I noticed that the more attacks one does in a particular turn, the worse they tend to turn out. Like the rng gradually ups the odds against the player. Again, saving before attacking and reloading seems to keep the ai honest.

Did you play CIV3 with "save random seed" turned off? The default is "on", and with the save "on", the combat results are exactly the same regardless of how many times you reload. That alone should prove that your impression is completely wrong.

 

[Ex-Cop]

Get over it mate. You want complete realism, go outside.