Why there is at least 1 damage?

[Schalke 04]

1 damage is OK for a fairly advantage. I think it should depend on the military tech advantage.

If you have a huge advantage in military tech, even a non damage attack would be reasonable (eg Mech Inf vs. Spearmen). As research is linked to population, and therefore the overall performance of your whole empire, I find it adequate to represent it in a military advantage.

For example: if you are two ages ahead, it may just end in one damage point for your unit.

However, if you are three ages ahead in military techniques (exact number is debatable) you should be able to crush your enemies like a fly. This counts especially for air units vs melee units (fe fighters vs [long]swordwsmen, regardless of its era). A straight tech advantage should outweigh production bonusses of the AI.

 

[SRG]

1 damage is OK for a fairly advantage. I think it should depend on the military tech advantage.

If you have a huge advantage in military tech, even a non damage attack would be reasonable (eg Mech Inf vs. Spearmen). As research is linked to population, and therefore the overall performance of your whole empire, I find it adequate to represent it in a military advantage.

For example: if you are two ages ahead, it may just end in one damage point for your unit.

However, if you are three ages ahead in military techniques (exact number is debatable) you should be able to crush your enemies like a fly. This counts especially for air units vs melee units (fe fighters vs [long]swordwsmen, regardless of its era). A straight tech advantage should outweigh production bonusses of the AI.

But back to reality: If you are three eras ahead of your enemy militarily... you are going to crush him. This 1 damage thing isn't going to change that.

How many Warriors would it take to down a GDR? You would need at least six units surrounding the thing and then some extra Archers in the back to kill it. And it would need to happen on one turn. And it would require that the GDR is operating all on his lonesome.


What's wrong with that?

 

[Schalke 04]

OK, I should mention that I'm talking about "higher" levels (I am just an emperor player yet) AND I assume that AI will improve with future patches.

In this scenario you want to use any benefit of a military advantage (as a human player) to counter the AI's production bonusses.

I do know, that there is a big IF. In the casual "setup" it is endeed enough to play well as a human and use your advantage (eg in military techs) to crush your AI opponents, even if you get 1 damage.


However, if there is an AI player (especially on higher difficulties) which is that much back in terms of (military) techs, it honestly "deserves" to be crushed without any losses...

 

[Tabarnak]

Ok for no damage, but remome exp. gained from a tank killing a spearman for example, or any units having double or maybe triple

 

[swmaniac]

Has there been any rationale for removing this damage?

Because if my GDR takes 10% of its total hitpoints in damage from attacking a stone age warrior, I need to fire everyone even remotely involved in its design and useage.

In addition, if it means wear and tear - then it should happen every turn a unit moves.

 

[dexters]

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

Seconded. You also don't want to expand the existing problem with embarked units dying with no penalty to the attacker to other areas of the battle system (I'm aware this situation isn't a 1:1 analogue of the naval embarkment situation)

You can see this minimum dmg requirement as a reasonable solution to the cheapness of embarked armies being slaughtered by a handful of ships. Attacking navies killing units should take minimum 1 dmg or more depending on differential in era.

 

[swmaniac]

Seconded. You also don't want to expand probably with embarked units to other areas of the battle system (even if this situation isn't a 1:1 analogue of the naval embarkment situation)

Actually you can see this minimum dmg requirement as a reasonable solution to the cheapness of embarked armies being slaughtered by a handful of ships, or more broadly, modern era land units dying to much older warships.

But there are much better ways to do that without it feeling like an arbitrary penalty.

 

[Txurce]

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?

How could you possibly say your one-point complaint makes the spearman-kills-tank problem worse?

You've also ignored the multiple replies pointing out that one damage could be viewed as a supply issue.

 

[chazzycat]

Because if my GDR takes 10% of its total hitpoints in damage from attacking a stone age warrior, I need to fire everyone even remotely involved in its design and useage.

In addition, if it means wear and tear - then it should happen every turn a unit moves.

Ewoks, man. Friggin Ewoks. Think about it.

 

[swmaniac]

How could you possibly say your one-point complaint makes the spearman-kills-tank problem worse?

You've also ignored the multiple replies pointing out that one damage could be viewed as a supply issue.

Because it does. Enough archers and you can just rush any unit regardless of strength. It doesn't matter that you attacked a GDR with 10 spearman units, the spears would regardless of numbers, fail to break the armor.

Also, the unit taking damage because of a supply issue is inconsistant. Why doesn't it take damage when it moves? Why doesn't it take damage when it's on the other side of the planet where it couldn't be anywhere NEAR friendly supplies? Why only when it attacks, and even within friendly territory?

 

[chazzycat]

you're thinking too literally....spearman are people. They can still use their envirnoment to their advantage. They're not gonna just stand there stabbing the armor. They are gonna tie some ropes to their spears and trip the GDRs like in Star Wars.

 

[Drawmeus]

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.

This conception of how people fight is just wrong, I think.

In conflicts between the Zulu and the British, British troops which Civ would call "Infantry" sustained heavy losses to near-naked spearmen until they finally managed to bring overwhelming numbers to bear.

Spearmen won't damage a tank by standing in front of it and thrusting... but they'll be able to kill some of the infantry support, they'll be able to seize some munitions and bring them to bear on the tanks, they'll sometimes be able to pry up the hatch on a tank and kill the crew, etc.

Humans are ingenious problem solvers. Superior technology might be enough to guarantee victory in a war, but it doesn't mean you'll come out unharmed.

The only real situation where the defender literally won't be able to fight back is pre-industrial era tech being used against aircraft.

 

[swmaniac]

you're thinking too literally....spearman are people. They can still use their envirnoment to their advantage. They're not gonna just stand there stabbing the armor. They are gonna tie some ropes to their spears and trip the GDRs like in Star Wars.

And then the GDR is going to start dragging them along as it walks, probably killing them in the process. Because the AT-ST in Star Wars was apperently designed by someone worse than the guy that designed the Enterprise (Let's just say Sci-Fi writers do not have engineering degrees). No one would ever design a vehicle so off balance that 12 guys pulling could pull it over, it would never function in any terrain except plains.

 

[swmaniac]

This conception of how people fight is just wrong, I think.

In conflicts between the Zulu and the British, British troops which Civ would call "Infantry" sustained heavy losses to near-naked spearmen until they finally managed to bring overwhelming numbers to bear.

Spearmen won't damage a tank by standing in front of it and thrusting... but they'll be able to kill some of the infantry support, they'll be able to seize some munitions and bring them to bear on the tanks, they'll sometimes be able to pry up the hatch on a tank and kill the crew, etc.

Humans are ingenious problem solvers. Superior technology might be enough to guarantee victory in a war, but it doesn't mean you'll come out unharmed.

The only real situation where the defender literally won't be able to fight back is pre-industrial era tech being used against aircraft.

Then why do the Spearmen stay spearmen if they grab the guns from the infantry?
Shouldn't they get an upgrade? Also, why does the tank get 0 damage?

Superior technology should protect tanks from club wielding warriors.

 

[JJOne]

However, if you are three ages ahead in military techniques (exact number is debatable) you should be able to crush your enemies like a fly. This counts especially for air units vs melee units (fe fighters vs [long]swordwsmen, regardless of its era).

Wrong. Riflemen are three eras ahead of spearmen. However the first battles in anglo-zulu war were won by the zulu spearmen.
As for air units vs melee, I'm sure you could find a malfunctioning engine or a pilot idiot enough to crash in a canyon when trying to attack well hidden swordsmen. Google "Jet crash Afghanistan" for fresh examples.

Because if my GDR takes 10% of its total hitpoints in damage from attacking a stone age warrior, I need to fire everyone even remotely involved in its design and useage.

Since there are no real live "giant death robots", see star wars or avatar.

 

[illserveu]

Well, it's totally no sense for a Brute damaging the Jet Fighter (they DID throw fire arrows to my Jet, not because some stupid pilot crash the Jet himself)!

 

[dexters]

But there are much better ways to do that without it feeling like an arbitrary penalty.

It's not really a penalty. As someone mentioned, if you have even just a 1 era technological advantage, those 1 hp dings aren't going to stop you unless you're playing increadibly cheap or simply can't war.

But I think overpowering unit kills defender with no damage is highly unbalanced.

In fact, I appreciate the fact that bombing missions forces bombers to take damage. Other iterations of Civ did not have this penalty, only that your planes could be shot down outright if there was sufficient Anti-air in the stack.

It made for really really overpowering airpower bombardment under human control and certainly is a situation similar to how ships can kill infinite number of embarked units right now.

Granted it is still possible to have your superstack of bombers parked in the city achieve something similar, but taking damage has tended to slow this down.

When the debate is reality vs. elegant simple solutions to game design, game design should always win.

 

[Zechnophobe]

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.

Bombers run out of bombs. The reason your bomber has to rest a turn is because it is getting more bombs.

 

[jagdtigerciv]

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.

Stop taking it so literally. Once again, and I completely agree, the one damage represents the reduction in fuel, supply, etc.

Tank's go to engage 'Spearman', this cost fuel and the loss of organization of engagement, as well as many other factors, thereby, forcing to tanks to stop for one turn ("regroup") or operate at a 9/10 health reduction.

Not only that, I don't literally take Spearman as literally Spearmen in 1994. Like almost everything in this game, it is a representation of a severely outdated/under trained and unit for it's time.

 

[konkydonk]

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.

That's true but the tanks would have to spend fuel and ammunition, reducing their combat effectiveness by a small increment, say about one points worth!