1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Unit types need modifiers to reflect their realistic usage

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Brawndo, Oct 30, 2010.

  1. Brawndo

    Brawndo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    255
    IMO the Civ series as a whole has failed to capture what war is like historically because of this. Civ 5 is the worst offender, primarily thanks to horseman spam. On the other hand, SMAC actually got it right - if you look at the base unit chassis types, some were more effective in certain terrain than others. Here are some tweaks I would make to address this:

    1) Mounted units -50% strength when attacking cities with walls, -33% strength attacking cities without walls

    - Someone want to explain how horse-mounted soldiers can take a walled city by themselves? Maybe their horses are expert jumpers, or maybe they ride winged mounts...? Anyway cavalry are meant for maneuvering in open terrain to surround and flank the enemy, and for charging vulnerable units like archers and siege equipment, and lose a lot of their effectiveness in urban combat.


    2) Infantry +25% strength when attacking cities and forts

    - Infantry are meant for assaulting cities, and then defending what they've taken. This modifier would encourage players to use infantry in the manner in which they were meant to be used.


    3) Catapults and Trebuchets -50% ranged strength against non-city targets

    - Historically catapults and trebuchets were not used in the field very often, because trying to hit a moving target with them was nearly impossible. And yet in this game, they can annihilate fast-moving units like chariots and horsemen.


    4) Tanks -50% strength and Modern Armor -33% strength when attacking cities

    - Armored vehicles are extremely vulnerable in city, because of limited sight and the fact they can be ambushed in close quarters from every direction. No WWII tank commander in his right mind would drive his tanks into a defended city without heavy air and infantry support.
     
  2. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    I agree
     
  3. anti_strunt

    anti_strunt Warlord

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    Oh, Civ can never be made "realistic", but it can certainly be made into a more interesting tactical puzzle. So I agree with the above changes, but for the wrong reasons!
     
  4. Jediron

    Jediron Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    396
    That's the main key, you speak of "more interesting tactical puzzle". Like alot of people say CIV 5 is "more tactical". And that's exactly my main complaint; there is nothing tactical to it!
    It gives you a "sence of tactical" warfare, while in reality; it is flawed from the basics.
    I know previous CIV's were not "more tactical" then CIV 5, CIV have never been a good tactical wargame; even now it comes down to only a few pieces of "tactical warfare" ; the ground you stand on and where to go. For the rest; it is all arcade. Beating the system. A system which is far from tactical, it's a joke. I can call dozens of examples why the system is flawed. Why it is far from realistic, tactical warfare.

    With previous CIV's, we more or less knew this upfront. It is now, with CIV 5, what make me laugh when people talk about "more tactical" warfare. The feeling of something does not mean it is actually true. It ain't. Period. If you have a sence of real warfare and know what goes on on the battefield, you should know that's true.

    Play a Total War battle for example; that's way more tactical then any CIV can give you.
    Those horses don't run through that gap unharmed, those archers are NOT standing still, after firing, etc.etc.etc. It's a dynamic envirement where every minute counts, with rapid changes on the battlefield, all at the same time. And that's why CIV sucks on a tactical level, it just can't deliver that dynamic envirement.
     
  5. anti_strunt

    anti_strunt Warlord

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    I don't think the game is currently very tactical, but it can present interesting puzzles "Hmm, how can I maximize my kill/death ration for this turn...?"
     
  6. Eskel

    Eskel Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    233
    Location:
    Poznań, Poland
    Civ cannot be realistic, however it can be made an interesting model of real world.
    Paper-scissor-rock mechanism that was foundation of combat in Civ4 was quite entertaining. I think that Civ5 misses it a lot, because of 1UPT.
    I think that meaningful modifiers with 1UPT could result in massive tactical exploits against weak AI.

    For me perfect solution would be 3-5UPT with different bonuses for each unit class.
     
  7. OTAKUjbski

    OTAKUjbski TK421

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,511
    Location:
    not at my post
    So because ciV can't deliver a dynamic environment like Total War, they should just abandon trying?

    Way to give up, lol.

    I vote for 2upt -- one melee + one ranged (e.g. Warrior + Archer, Pikeman + Catapult, etc.)
     
  8. Babri

    Babri Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,449
    Location:
    Pakistan
    2upt would only increase micro. 1upt is a very good system. It only needs some polishing work.

    Agreed. But in order to balance the game & for realism purposes, cavalry especially knights should be devastating in open. Adding 33% in open terrain would be perfect. However 33% penalty while defending by units is inappropriate. (so only cavalry will get bonuses when attacking in open, infantry will not get bonuses unless promoted).
    Hmm.. Maybe 20%. Overall I agree with the idea
    Yeah ! That feels very stupid when I destroy loads of enemies with my catapults garrisoned in the city
     
  9. Yzman

    Yzman Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,692
    Location:
    Illinois, USA
    Tanks and modern armor already get a penalty for attacking cities if you didn't notice.
     
  10. testdummy653

    testdummy653 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Messages:
    324
    Location:
    Lab 653
    Lets just play SMAC... Infantry get a 25 bonus for attacking cities, Rovers + hover tanks get bonus for playing in the open. You can customize your units to "T".
     
  11. Brawndo

    Brawndo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    255
    Yeah, I really don't like the current system, infantry should not get attack bonuses/penalties in open terrain without a promotion
     
  12. anti_strunt

    anti_strunt Warlord

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    The -33% in Open is especially problematic for infantry because they can't move after attacking, leaving them stranded for a counter-attack. If an infantry unit attacks an enemy in the open against a half-way competent opponent, that infantry is a good as dead...
     
  13. Babri

    Babri Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,449
    Location:
    Pakistan
    1) Before attacking make sure that the defender will not die & your unit is in hill or forest (to save your unit from destructive counter attack).
    2) Use you ranged units to finish the unit off instead of putting your infantry in trouble.
     
  14. Maxor127

    Maxor127 Warlord

    Joined:
    May 28, 2003
    Messages:
    229
    I agree. 2upt would be pointless. I don't understand why some people are stuck on "limited stacks." I think 1UPT works fine how it is, but I agree the terrain and unit bonuses/penalties need to be reworked. And I think more could be done with flanking bonuses. 1upt itself just needs some improved unit and selection options so you can select and move groups of units at once, kind of like an RTS.
     
  15. Jediron

    Jediron Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    396
    They should NOT try to make a tactical battlesystem work on a strategical level, which CIV maps are. That right. All the issue's you get with it is shown here on the forums. Plenty of "good" examples why it does NOT work very well.

    I just give you my opion WHY it does not work and why i think it never will work very well.
    Afcourse they can try whatever they want, but i bet we can have the same discussion over six months or a year. Wanna bet ?
     
  16. Magic_gorter

    Magic_gorter Moderator Moderator Civ2 GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,699
    Location:
    Amersfoort (Netherlands)
    Moderator Action: moved thread
     
  17. marceljv

    marceljv Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    Messages:
    54
    I do not think this is needed. Cities already are easy to take without giving any unit a bonus to take them. Also by giving a bonus in no way does that make Infantry defend them any better. By making Cavalry worse at taking cities you are making Infantry better, no need to double that up.

    As for terrain modifiers I believe you want to do away with the -33% in open terrain, but keep the modifier for swamp/marsh.

    Does anyone know if Cavalry get the -33% modifier for open terrain? Since they do not get defensive bonuses, I was wondering if all modifiers on terrain are considered bonuses, and the one for open just happens to be a negative one. As I never see AI cavalry I have not had a chance to test this to see if they do or do not.
     
  18. OTAKUjbski

    OTAKUjbski TK421

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,511
    Location:
    not at my post
    (getting a little off topic here ...)

    I don't feel like 2upt would increase micro any more than 1upt already has. By comparison, INF-upt stacks in cIV required virtually no micro. So if we move closer to that again, micro should decrease with each additional upt.

    I do agree, though, 1upt in ciV is a good system in need of polishing -- especially where the AI's handling of it is concerned.

    ... for the same reason others get stuck on reworking unit bonuses. :rolleyes:

    I agree; that's like putting a round peg into a square hole.

    The idea is just to take elements of the tactical battlesystem and adapting them to the strategic design of ciV -- not to take the whole system and force it where it doesn't belong.

    Trial and error. It's just part of the process.

    I agree with you, though. This discussion will continue forever, because nobody's ever happy, and a lot of people come to forums just to hear themselves type anymore. ;)
     
  19. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,234
    Location:
    Sydney
    I agree with the proposed changes. They seem to make quite a bit of sense.

    Anything that involves the consideration of each individual battle is tactical. This suggestion itself would be a tactical change to a tactical concept; that of units having differing strengths. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing, but it is tactics rather than strategy.
     
  20. Babri

    Babri Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,449
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Let me give you an example. In 2 or 3upt you'll not only have to place units in right place but also you have to frequently check your unit combo & your enemy unit combo which he has in front line. Your 2 tanks will get destroyed by 2 gunships. You'll have to make sure that in that tile you also have one AA gun. However in 1upt it is quite clear & you only need to look at them at once. Place your units accordingly. You don't have to go & check thoroughly each of the 2 unit army. The units are clearly visible.
     

Share This Page