Units aren't destroyed if they lose a battle!

[Takeda]

Forgive me if this is old news, but I was so excited to finally see this confirmed by The Escapist.

This is Panzer general after all. I'm loving the changes to the combat system I have seen so far. Warfare will be genuinely strategic and interesting, instead of the mind numbing chore that combat was in CivIV.

Defeated units will require time and resources to bring back up to full strength, and I assume that a unit can eventually be destroyed if it's defeated several times without being reinforced. So far this is sounding awesome.

Keep up the good work Jon

 

[Herrhals]

yep, good addition. That way one unit doesn't always have to die every conflict, which is nice. I'm looking forward to w.e ciV dishes out at me...anything can be better than cIV in terms of combat!

 

[Takeda]

yep, good addition. That way one unit doesn't always have to die every conflict, which is nice. I'm looking forward to w.e ciV dishes out at me...anything can be better than cIV in terms of combat!

true dat. Combat was BY FAR the weakest aspect of Civilization IV. Pretty much any change is good change, but I'm really intrigued by what I'm seeing so far. Especially considering that I love those old hex based SSI wargames

 

[Gliese 581]

It's totally epic that someone who loves Panzer General is designing the combat. I've played the PG campaign so many times..

 

[Steve the Noble]

In some of the other threads that discuss limited resources (e.g. iron), there's some mention about it only being possible to build new units if some existing ones are destroyed.

There's got to be some way for a unit to be destroyed or otherwise removed from play (apart from disbanding).

Any clues from Panzer General?

 

[Thormodr]

I am sure you should be able to disband units.

Unless they've gone the way of Civ Rev on the DS.

 

[timtofly]

According to the live interviews, there is a DELETE option in a submenu under the units options that will not be easy to accidently hit, but is there to delete the unit. This does not seem very realistic, but that seems to be what they kept stressing.

 

[mattigus]

I tried playing Panzer General a while ago. It seems that if you are attacked and lose, you will take casualties and retreat. If that unit is chased and keeps taking beatings without getting reinforced, they die.

I think it's a good assumption that Civ will work the same way. If you are attacked and lose, your unit moves back a hex and the attacker moves forward one. It'll be interesting what happens if there's no option to retreat. More casualties, or just insta-death?

 

[chongli]

According to the live interviews, there is a DELETE option in a submenu under the units options that will not be easy to accidently hit, but is there to delete the unit. This does not seem very realistic, but that seems to be what they kept stressing.

I'm sure someone could come along and make a mod to rename DELETE to DISBAND and all would be well with the world.

 

[morss_4]

In some of the other threads that discuss limited resources (e.g. iron), there's some mention about it only being possible to build new units if some existing ones are destroyed.

There's got to be some way for a unit to be destroyed or otherwise removed from play (apart from disbanding).

Any clues from Panzer General?

Units died in PG all the time. It's just that a unit wasn't GUARANTEED to die in every combat action. More often than not they were simply damaged, but if a sufficiently damaged unit was attacked then it would be destroyed.

 

[Deckhand]

Units died in PG all the time. It's just that a unit wasn't GUARANTEED to die in every combat action. More often than not they were simply damaged, but if a sufficiently damaged unit was attacked then it would be destroyed.

Yup. A big part of the tactics was killing the enemy units without losing yours.

Spoiler :

part of any military tactics, probably goes without saying, duh

--
About disbanding units if you are limited to N units by only M strategic resources: better would be a way to upgrade it in the city. Or disbanding should provide hammers but only for units.

 

[kurtkage]

There is a story in this review http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/107/1075587p2.html
that says something interesting:

"Unfortunately, along the way a few of the warriors were lost in an unexpected fight with barbarians."

It says a "few" out of 6 and yet the escapist http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99021-Civilization-V-Offers-New-Strategic-Combat article says

"Units are no longer destroyed if they lose a battle"

which can't be right as that same article here from http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/107/1075587p2.html says this:

"You can't build any more than that until one of those units dies (or is disbanded) or you get access to more iron."

Some review that I can't find which one it was states something about how units are more valuable and talks about a veteran system of some sort.

hmmmm speculation is so fun

I love the ideas though of having units mean more and additional resources mean more.

 

[Takeda]

@ Kurtkage

they didn't say that units couldn't be destroyed, they said that units are no longer automatically destroyed if they lose a battle. In most cases they will have just taken some damage, and have to be worn down over a couple of turns to be destroyed.

You know, like Panzer General

 

[Earthling]

Combat was BY FAR the weakest aspect of Civilization IV. Pretty much any change is good change, but I'm really intrigued by what I'm seeing so far.

AHAHA. Agreed it could be a bit better, but it's a step up from preceding civ games. Diplomacy/AI were and remain the weak points.

I think you'll be disappointed, though I hope not, about being like strategic war games though. There's simply no way civ can do both - be a civ game with a grand scope and have solid tactical combat mechanics that take up hours of time. Instead I'm worried the compromise is simply making the game smaller and simplified, and combat focus will detract from other aspects.

 

[kurtkage]

@Takeda

They actually DO state it, I quoted that article directly from escapist it says verbatim:

"Units are no longer destroyed if they lose a battle"

That sounds to me the way it is phrased that they are never destroyed, which appears wrong. shrug

Edit: I guess I am taking it too literally, they probably do mean that it's not always destroyed but can be shrug again

 

[Padje Dog]

PG had two types of damage, Suppression and actual losses. If all the "points" remaining in a unit were suppressed then the unit would flee. If there was no hex to flee to the unit would surrender. So if you attacked but the defended was allowed to fire first, and the defender did 10 suppression damage to your strength 10 unit the attack would be broken up. The suppressed point of the unit wouldn't function in combat, so if from the above example the defender did 9 suppression damage the attacking strength would only be 1 even though its a strength 10 unit. Attackers fully suppressed don't flee, their attack just gets broken up.

Once a unit became fully suppressed any further attack would result in further fleeing.

All suppression is removed at the end of the turn.

Any idea if suppression will be modeled?

 

[Chazcon]

Not to beat my chest but I have that in my mod that I need to FINISH and UPLOAD...

 

[Ahriman]

That sounds to me the way it is phrased that they are never destroyed

What? Not at all. The way it is phrased makes it sound like a unit that loses a fight will take damage/lose strength. If it was full health, it won't die. But if it was damaged already, it might well die.

So it means a unit won't die in a single fight if it was full strength; not that units will never die.

This is quite common in a lot of turn-based strategy games.

 

[GePap]

if we can still upgrade units to more advanced types, I fail to see that much use for the delete button unless the unit limit applies to any and all units needing that resource. Do we know if this is the case, so for example, if I want some knights, I may have to get rid of my men at arms to make them?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

if we can still upgrade units to more advanced types, I fail to see that much use for the delete button unless the unit limit applies to any and all units needing that resource. Do we know if this is the case, so for example, if I want some knights, I may have to get rid of my men at arms to make them?

Probably...unless the upgrading is a Lot broader and includes "reequipping"