Unit strength values

[joycem10]

Something which I never liked about CIV III and which looks like it may not continue in CIV IV is the relatively low integer values given to units for combat.

When all of the ancient age units have values between 1 & 3 for attack and defense (like CIV III) it allows the ramdom number generator to have too much of an impact on combat early in the game. Playing on a smaller map the loss of 3-4 units to a bad run of the RNG early in the ancient age can end your game.

I understand that the unit strength numbers that we have seen so far have signal that the numbers used will skew higher, which would help eliminate the damage from a flukey RNG. Has anyone seen any of the strength numbers for later units to see how they compare with the earlier units?

 

[Gen]

Actually, when strength of units is measured in relatively low integer numbers, given Civ 3 combat engine outcome of each battle it is far more predictable than if they were larger yet differing by the same amount (which is generally true as time passes and tech progresses). Look at this this way: 2 (archer) attack versus 1 (warrior) defence has 2 to 1 odds for winning each round, 4 (knight) vs 3 (pikeman) - only 4 to 3 and so on...

I agree though with your notion about low unit number - this is the real reason why ancient wars are so unpredictable and risky. If my 10 swordsmen can't take a city with tree spearmen that usually means all my offensive force just went poof and I'm in great trouble. Later on it isn't so much problem really, reinforcements are coming in line fast and there are more cities that can be devoted to military production.

Something should be done with this in Civ4, ancient wars can be as much fun as later ones, if not more!

 

[Xen]

catapults are teh useful