Units aren't destroyed when defeated?!??!

[hardcore_gamer]

On the "confirmed features" thread on of the listed changes says that units no longer get destroyed when defeated. Just how exactly is this suppose to work? This better not be handled poorly because I would hate having to play whack a mole by chasing defeated units across the map because I can't destroy them completely

More details would be nice!

 

[Savoir10]

On the "confirmed features" thread on of the listed changes says that units no longer get destroyed when defeated. Just how exactly is this suppose to work? This better not be handled poorly because I would hate having to play whack a mole by chasing defeated units across the map because I can't destroy them completely

More details would be nice!

Did it say you cannot kill them or you may not kill them in one attack.

The whole change in the combat system is geared towards Combined arms. Softening up the defender with ranged units before hitting and killing them with your offensive units. It's going to require a little more strategic thought than hitting his stack with yours and hoping yours is bigger. Which in my opinion, is a good thing.

You can forget chasing weakened units as they can swap them out with fresh defenders, to the rear of their lines to allow them to recover. Well they will if they have set up layered defenses with ranged units supporting the front lines.

One consequence of limiting units may be to kill off the early rush. Which would destroy the one and only strat of about 70% of MP. I hope that is the case.

 

[paperfire]

The new combat system is reminding me of Advance Wars if anyone played that.

 

[Savoir10]

The new combat system is reminding me of Advance Wars if anyone played that.

This "new" system has been around for a long time. Advanced Wars just used the Panzer General System, which was borrowed off the old board games that were around during the 1940's or maybe even earlier. It's a tried and true system that's perfectly suited to turn based strategy.

 

[Calouste]

In PG (I just fired PGII up again today), units do get destroyed, but not on the initial attack. They get weakened, then they withdraw if they are weakened more, and only when down to about 20% of their strength or facing a far superior opponent will they get destroyed.

I think the wording "Units aren't destroyed when defeated" is inaccurate. It's that there will be a lot of battles that don't result in units being defeated, just that one unit will get more damage than the other. Just imagine that instead of having multiple combat rounds fighting to the death as in Civ IV, each unit will only have one combat round. There won't be first strike and healing will be slower or more expensive.

 

[Schuesseled]

On the "confirmed features" thread on of the listed changes says that units no longer get destroyed when defeated. Just how exactly is this suppose to work? This better not be handled poorly because I would hate having to play whack a mole by chasing defeated units across the map because I can't destroy them completely

More details would be nice!

units can be completley destroyed from an attack, it can take only one battle, but might also take a couple of battles.

 

[Savoir10]

Yeah I agree with you both. If the attacker is strong enough it will kill in one turn. Harder defenders will take a little wearing down.

 

[AriochIV]

That quote made me wonder also when I first saw it, but the video showing in-game combat footage makes it clear: units damage each other during combat, and if the damage happens to be enough to destroy it, the loser is destroyed, but otherwise both units continue to exist (though damaged). So "units aren't (necessarily/automatically) destroyed when defeated in combat" is probably what the previewer meant to say.

 

[snapple232]

Well in real war you don't necessarily massacre every last enemy soldier in every single battle. As long as your front line is advancing, and the enemy is retreating, than you're winning the war and achieving strategic objectives. At least that's how I view this new combat system.

 

[12agnar0k]

basically if the two forces coming together are roughly equally, i.e warrior vs warrior or infantry vs infantry, a stalemate is likely. Thus more attacks are needed to finish the job. Where as if you've got a distinct advantage.. spearman vs horse or infantry vs damaged infantry. A sucess is more likely.

While thier will be some stalemates, thier will also be plenty of straight up kills.

 

[DivljaJagoda]

Well complete destruction of an army hasn't always been prevalent in history. Usually troops would get away and wait for reinforcements, so this is more realistic. I can only think of units getting completely destroyed after Hannibal's use of encirclement which I'm sure if you accomplish on the map, the units will get fully destroyed. I personally like this, it makes the game more realistic and tactical.

 

[Kranden]

The new combat system is reminding me of Advance Wars if anyone played that.

This would make me soo happy its not even funny. The thought of mixing Advance wars combat system with Civs well.... Civilization system would be amazing.

 

[Carver]

This "new" system has been around for a long time. Advanced Wars just used the Panzer General System, which was borrowed off the old board games that were around during the 1940's or maybe even earlier. It's a tried and true system that's perfectly suited to turn based strategy.

You sound like you know what you're talking about; I hope you're right.

I did not immediately fall in love with 1upt.

 

[Savoir10]

You sound like you know what you're talking about; I hope you're right.

I did not immediately fall in love with 1upt.

Civ and PG have always been my top 2 games of all time. The idea of them being combined is the most wonderful news I've ever heard.

However if they stuff it up no-one is going to be more angry and disappointed than me.