Why there is at least 1 damage?

[illserveu]

So it's somehow annoying that no matter how strong your unit is, you take 1 damage when attacking enemy. So... how can a Bar Brute damage my Jet Fighter? How can an Acher damages my Mech (don't say Avatar here, lol, they took down chopper with arrow)?

So I think that in next patch, 2K Game should remove this minimum damage!

 

[Jaybe]

No, they should NOT remove the minimum damage!
Minimum 1 damage represents supply and readiness reduction.

 

[deanej]

It makes no sense for an ancient unit to damage a modern one. A spearman can't even scratch the paint of a tank. There needs to be an era cap.

It does seem like a good response to the immortal longbowman of civ4 that would be undamaged even after killing your entire stack of 10 catapults and 10 macemen while the other city defenders are barely clinging to life.

 

[Blitz66]

I agree with Jaybe 100%.

Combat in Civ is abstracted substantially. The 1 damage simply represents wear and tear on equipment, and what Jaybe said; supply and readiness reduction.

Don't think of it as the little arrows plinking off the jet fighter's fuselage, think of it simply as the cost of engaging in combat, no matter who you attack.

 

[aatami]

Agree with Jaybe.
The 1 damage can also represent random accidents and casualties that can happen in a battle no matter how strong one enemy is.

 

[deanej]

It's kinda hard for a spearman to damage a tank if the spearman dies from missiles and machine gun fire long before it gets anywhere near the tank.

 

[VirginiaRounder]

That's a significant reason why I think the Janissary is a better unit than some people give it credit for. Take away the one damage rule and the value of their quality goes down quite a bit.

 

[Polish]

I also think the automatic one damage is silly. I think there should be a chance for any unit to damage any other, but it should absolutely not be automatic.

 

[aatami]

Has there been any rationale for removing this damage?

 

[deanej]

Because it's horrifically unrealistic? There should be a rationale for having it, not for removing it, and I see no rationale for having it.

 

[illserveu]

So maybe a solution for both sides: randomly take 1 damage (as Blitz66's idea: random accident, ...) instead of always?

There's no way the Infantry morale go down after take down an Acher, but when they win, their morale must be raised.

 

[deanej]

Why not keep it but with a cap so that there is no minimum damage inflicted on the unit of more advanced era?

 

[SRG]

Why not keep it but with a cap so that there is no minimum damage inflicted on the unit of more advanced era?

Units of the same era will usually do more than 1 damage to each other. I think it is there precisely for units who are separated by an era or two.

 

[chazzycat]

Totally fine with this. As others have said, combat is abstracted a bit. Even if you don't like to think about it as maintenance or supply, in pitched battles there are usually a FEW casualties at least. Someone is bound to get a lucky arrow in somewhere...

 

[deanej]

Units of the same era will usually do more than 1 damage to each other. I think it is there precisely for units who are separated by an era or two.

But it's totally unrealistic for units of an early unit to damage ones of a later era! Is Firaxis trying to make the spearman vs. tank problem worse?

 

[JJOne]

It's kinda hard for a spearman to damage a tank if the spearman dies from missiles and machine gun fire long before it gets anywhere near the tank.

There are more spearmen. Against one lonely tank...

 

[SRG]

But it's totally unrealistic for units of an early unit to damage ones of a later era! Is Firaxis trying to make the spearman vs. tank problem worse?

It is nowhere near as bad as cIV, where a single spearman could kill many tanks.


But it is realistic to suppose that a company of spearmen could disrupt the supply lines of a company of tanks. At the very least, they could slow their progress and perhaps damage a tread or something. It is entirely possible to expect that when two groups of humans regard each other with the intent of MURDER, even given huge technological differences, that these two groups would have some ability to adapt and find a way to hurt their enemy.

War is hell. It is chaos, it is unpredictable, it is gruesome, and it is outright literal hell.

It is not so unrealistic. Environment is also a factor that could cause "damage" to a unit during combat. Even if those spearmen never got close, the tanks in their offensive push could have missed a ditch or something, and thus taken small damage.

 

[chazzycat]

But it's totally unrealistic for units of an early unit to damage ones of a later era! Is Firaxis trying to make the spearman vs. tank problem worse?

are you serious? In previous games it was actually possible for the spearman to kill the tank completely. 1 damage is not that bad.

Think of it not as 1 tank versus 1 spearman. Think of it as a company of spearman vs. a tank battalion. Most of the tanks go and blow up most of the spearman. However, one tank gets stuck in some mud. A clever spearman is hiding...biding his time, then the gunner pops his head out of the tank for a sec to see why he's stuck and BAM - spear in the face.

 

[SRG]

are you serious? In previous games it was actually possible for the spearman to kill the tank completely. 1 damage is not that bad.

Think of it not as 1 tank versus 1 spearman. Think of it as a company of spearman vs. a tank battalion. Most of the tanks go and blow up most of the spearman. However, one tank gets stuck in some mud. A clever spearman is hiding...biding his time, then the gunner pops his head out of the tank for a sec to see why he's stuck and BAM - spear in the face.

Spear to tha MUTHA FUGGIN FACE!!!!

 

[smileyy90210]

It's kinda hard for a spearman to damage a tank if the spearman dies from missiles and machine gun fire long before it gets anywhere near the tank.

And now your tank has fewer missiles and machine gun ammunition for the next battle.