Unit Combat Bonuses

[Arya]

I don't think anybody mentioned this before and I hope not. Well I think there should be combat bonuses for some units vs some others. For example a machine gun always wins against infantry where it is vulnerable fighting agianst tanks or heavily armored units, or an anti-tank unit like Bazooka or RPG is suited to fight against mechanized units but very weak vs infantry, regardless of how much mechanized units might be stronger than infantry.

 

[Zeekater]

IIRC Soren said something like that would be in, check the "Sid Meier's Civilization IV -- Prerelease Information" thread, it's stickied

 

[Jon Shafer]

I don't really think we want something in that means that a Machine Gun "always" wins over Infantry.

 

[Sirian]

Maybe not, but I personally would not object to seeing "tanks always win over spearmen".

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yeah, I think its best NOT to think in absolutes, but accept that a unit might have a better chance at taking out one type of unit, but be less likely to take out another-even though both opponent types might have the same attack and defense strength! If nothing else, it might help to encourage a combined arms strategy in the composition of stacks!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[AA-battery]

Well I would like to see some actual defence bonus for the pikeman against a mounted units as it clearly mentions in the unit description. In other games this already applies like in Age of Empires.

 

[Arya]

well may be didn't put it into words right but i didn't mean a machine gun would always win vs infantry. As Aussie Lurker said "unit might have a better chance at taking out one type of unit, but be less likely to take out another-even though both opponent types might have the same attack and defense strength"
and I think we see that to some degree in almost every real time strategy war game

 

[Eyeoftiger]

Well I would like to see some actual defence bonus for the pikeman against a mounted units as it clearly mentions in the unit description. In other games this already applies like in Age of Empires.

I don't know about you but my Cavs seem to fair much better against muskets than spears or pikes.

 

[TheDS]

In Civ2 they had the ability to mark something as being Cav and those units would have like half their attack value against spear units. However, I never noticed any way to designate something a spear unit.

Civ3/4 could use a few flags that say "Vulnerable to 1" "Vulnerable to 2" "Invulnerable to 1" "Invulnerable to 2" "Quality 1" "Quality 2" or something like that. Quality 1 might be spears, Quality 2 might be machineguns. Cavalry would be vulnerable to both, infantry would be vulnerable to one, and tanks would be invulnerable to both. Those qualities might be just about anything, and we may need 3 or 4 qualities and their matching in/vulerabilities, but let's not go overboard. We don't need Quality 52 being papercuts from business cards, ok? I only see the need for 2, but confess I may have missed one or two. NO MORE.

Stop going overboard!

 

[rhialto]

What civ2 had was the ability to mark a unit with the 'pikeman' flag, which gave x2 defence vs cavalry. Cavalry was defined as anything with a move of 2+.

What I'd like to see is every unit flagged with a 'chassis' flag. This would include such options as foot, horse, wheel, track, seige engine, etc. The chassi attribute serves two purposes:

1 - A table can be used to define the move costs of each chassis type with respect to each terrain type. So you can make it so seige engines can't cross mountains and wheels have an especially difficult time in sand seas, more so than tracks.

2 - Individual units can then have x[N] attack factor vs [chassis] flags set, or x[N] defence factor vs [chassis]. This makes it far more moddable than any previous system, without forcing you to define every possible unit vs unit interaction.

 

[sir_schwick]

I simply second rhialto's suggestion.

 

[Arya]

I like rhialto's Idea