Was Civ IV combat broken and not Civ V?

[Opellulo]

The fact is : Civ V AI is more ******** because in Civ V tactics are important and the AI has none . Just think of it this way : you will appear more stupid doing a Math test in college and doing 0/20 than doing a test in high school and getting 10/20 even if you have the same knowledge . Why? Because in College you're supposed to know more . Just like in Civ V the AI is supposed to know more . Its like if in Civ V the game offered us a brand new hammer to use in combat and the AI never learned how to use a hammer . We will have the hammer which will give us a huge advantage , making it way easier to beat the AI

I agree, but, as usually, the AI counter its "lower tactical intelligence" spamming more troops than you.

In Civ 4 I found frustrating fighting against irrealistical and illogical unit stacks (in FFH I had to fight against a 150+ units stack just last week). In my current Civ 5 game I'm struggling in a war against England that target my cities from INSIDE it's cities (the dreaded 3-hex longbowmen reach). I won using a "fight and flee" tactic with heavy cavalry and it was VERY satisfying (much more than obliterate huge enemy stacks with cannons).

Only to add something to the much discussed Civ V combat system: I think it was designed with multiplayer in mind, so in single it seem a little flawed.

 

[Fistalis]

I agree, but, as usually, the AI counter its "lower tactical intelligence" spamming more troops than you.

In Civ 4 I found frustrating fighting against irrealistical and illogical unit stacks

Ya there really shoulda been SOME limit on numbers of units in a stack. RIght now im playing a game of CIV IV with ROM a new dawn and it has the option to set stack limits. I set it to 3 and im really enjoying it.

 

[CornPlanter]

The essence of Civ IV combat was a joke... Civ IV was more a economic / resource balance game than it ever was combat...

Thats exactly my point, sir. Thats why I say the combat was not broken. It was different. Simpler. The game was not about tactics at all.

I rather play a game with bad AI than mechanics anyday tho because you don't feel cheated from a win...

If you can't see the old method of fighting was a crutch and is broken, I can't convince you, but I can see it in flying colors...

When you fail at something it's always easiest to blame it on a broken combat. But it's not always the case. Sometimes the lack of skill is the case. And sorry after your example with silly stacks you are not gonna convince me you really knew how Civ4 combat works and what units should have been built.

 

[KAuss]

As your the one charging they would have the time to reposition in order to counter you. Combined arms and all. Your the one who has to run 1000 meters to meet them and attack.. while your running to meet they simply swap formations.

If you've played any of the real time war games like total war series... You'll know that no one ever runs their calvary into spearman... The spearman will always have to catch up to the attack to ward off the horseman... That's how it was in real life... No one smart would run into a wall knowing they're at a disadvantage...

That's like saying the US army now will send their foot soldiers into a fortified enemy front with infantry first, and bombers second only after their infantry fail to disarm the SAM sites...

Oh wait D-Day LOL... Bunch of Civ IV players planned that landing LOL...

Anywho, if you watch how the US literally fought Iraq, carpet bomb, mop up...

 

[aimlessgun]

Civ IV had tactics, actually. You could easily destroy superior AI forces by playing smarter than their brute force methods.

Not sure what the OP is saying with "Civ4 had no defense". Huh? I remember defense being pretty easy. Just hit and run as they move slowly towards your cities, and collateral them down.

Now, obviously the difficulty in Civ4 was based a lot MORE on hammers, it is true. You can't leverage an inferior force to quite the degree you can in Civ5.

 

[Generals3]

Read my other post...

Rock Paper Scissor Machinegun...

EDIT: i got the analogy kinda wrong apparently , my mistake

 

[KAuss]

Thats exactly my point, sir. Thats why I say the combat was not broken. It was different. Simpler. The game was not about tactics at all.



When you fail at something it's always easiest to blame it on a broken combat. But it's not always the case. Sometimes the lack of skill is the case. And sorry after your example with silly stacks you are not gonna convince me you really knew how Civ4 combat works and what units should have been built.

To each their own... If you like building collateral damage units all day because they were obviously the machinegun in the paper rock scissor algorithm, then there is nothing wrong with it...

I however expect much more in a game that featured "combat..."

 

[Fistalis]

If you've played any of the real time war games like total war series... You'll know that no one ever runs their calvary into spearman... The spearman will always have to catch up to the attack to ward off the horseman... That's how it was in real life... No one smart would run into a wall knowing they're at a disadvantage...

That's like saying the US army now will send their foot soldiers into a fortified enemy front with infantry first, and bombers second only after their infantry fail to disarm the SAM sites...

Oh wait D-Day LOL... Bunch of Civ IV players planned that landing LOL...

Anywho, if you watch how the US literally fought Iraq, carpet bomb, mop up...

I've played TOtal war... i know when i see horsman charging up the hill at my defensive postion i dont leave my archers out front i move them back behind my spearman...

 

[CornPlanter]

I however expect much more in a game that featured "combat..."

So basically if you dont get what you expect, you call the game broken? Q.E.D.

 

[KAuss]

So basically if you dont get what you expect, you call the game broken? Q.E.D.

LOL, like how we don't get the AI we want in Civ V?

 

[KAuss]

I've played TOtal war... i know when i see horsman charging up the hill at my defensive postion i dont leave my archers out front i move them back behind my spearman...

That means you're not shooting anymore and the opposing swords are charging!

 

[Fistalis]

So basically if you dont get what you expect, you call the game broken? Q.E.D.

Ya.. i mean if they made the next HALO a sword fighting game and cut out all the guns in the name of streamlining there would be a alot of pissed people... same aspect. Cause people know HALO as a shooter.. Civ was an empire simulation. now its.. a glorified war board game imho.

 

[Fistalis]

That means you're not shooting anymore and the opposing swords are charging!

So I put out my heavy infantry.. i mean ya we could do repositioning all day but your the one whos attacking so at the end of the day you have to make the final charge to meet whatever i have waiting for you

 

[Tutkarz]

To the OP i'll tell you short story:
In civ IV i have been conquering some city, weakened it to 0%, and inside there only one archer left severly wounded. So i took my fresh horseman, added general to him, added retreat chance 30% upgrade and attacked city. I was hoping to get easy exp from this fight so i can make good unit later on since odds was like 99.9% chances with added retreat chances. And guess what. He died. And i quit this game. To me civilization series just begun with civ V. And i was playing all of them.

 

[CornPlanter]

Ya.. i mean if they made the next HALO a sword fighting game and cut out all the guns in the name of streamlining there would be a alot of pissed people... same aspect. Cause people know HALO as a shooter.. Civ was an empire simulation. now its.. a glorified war board game imho.

Well but Civ had stacks since Civ1, nobody in their right minds should have expected something else from Civ4. Civ was never about tactics much, it was about strategy - building the right composition of units, right numbers, at the right time in order to win. If someone fails that, he shouldn't blame his fail on a "broken combat".

 

[Fistalis]

Well but Civ had stacks since Civ1, nobody in their right minds should have expected something else from Civ4. Civ was never about tactics much, it was about strategy - building the right composition of units, right numbers, at the right time in order to win. If someone fails that, he shouldn't blame his fail on a "broken combat".

Ya think we(I) got confused i was talking about V in my last comment to you lol

 

[KAuss]

So I put out my heavy infantry.. i mean ya we could do repositioning all day but your the one whos attacking so at the end of the day you have to make the final charge to meet whatever i have waiting for you

That's exactly the point, that charge will not happen until there is an advantage... Defense is reactive, offense is proactive...

It's like people who spread virus around... You don't make a virus that already have a fix in anti virus software, you pick a new exploit and attack there...

At the end of the day, attacker should attack at the weak point...

Again look at basketball... The games score really high because attackers have so many opportunities to strike against misplaced defense... You can be an A+ defensive player, but if all else are equal, the offensive player will score more times than you can stop them...

 

[KAuss]

To the OP i'll tell you short story:
In civ IV i have been conquering some city, weakened it to 0%, and inside there only one archer left severly wounded. So i took my fresh horseman, added general to him, added retreat chance 30% upgrade and attacked city. I was hoping to get easy exp from this fight so i can make good unit later on since odds was like 99.9% chances with added retreat chances. And guess what. He died. And i quit this game. To me civilization series just begun with civ V. And i was playing all of them.

Spear > Tank FTW

Thinking about it now, it isn't so broken... LOL... Oh the many times my lowly tank got rampaged by the spearman... (no not lierally, I was not that good to have tech that fast LOL)

 

[Fistalis]

That's exactly the point, that charge will not happen until there is an advantage... Defense is reactive, offense is proactive...

It's like people who spread virus around... You don't make a virus that already have a fix in anti virus software, you pick a new exploit and attack there...

At the end of the day, attacker should attack at the weak point...

Again look at basketball... The games score really high because attackers have so many opportunities to strike against misplaced defense... You can be an A+ defensive player, but if all else are equal, the offensive player will score more times than you can stop them...

And your choosing to charge with the unit you sent to attack. The easy tactical way to force an advantage is to seige unit their stack until you main attacker had an advantage.. not simply sending your swordsman in and wondering why he got killed by my axeman.

 

[KAuss]

You all are missing the point that collateral damage units beats EVERYTHING in Civ IV...

It is the ONLY counter to anything... That's not strategy, that's just hammering out as many catapults as you can, and building just enough other units to do the mop up...

Like I said, I use China all the time for the extra gold / tile and I mass ChoBows... I "know" how to mount an attack... I'm dumbing it down for simplicity sake... Take out catapults / other collateral damage units and figure out a counter...