Why there is at least 1 damage?

[Polish]

Actually, if you are willing to take the casualties, it is possible to disable a tank without gunpowder. Jam enough crap in the treads--logs, etc. and the treads will snap. Once the tank is immobilized, flamable liquids in the engine compartmnent will cause all sorts of problems.

Back on topic--the thing that makes me crazy about the 1 damage rule is that it is AUTOMATIC. I do not have a problem with spearmen being able to damage a tank or a jet aircraft--after all, fluke circumstances do arise. Perhaps the jet pilot go so fixated on the target he didn't pull out in time and hit the ground, or the tank got isolated, or, or, or, or.

The point is that I do have a serious problem with it happening every single time. A random chance would help balance the game, but it really irritates me to take damage in every attack, especially when there is no realistic expectation that the units involved would be able to damage me.

I just can't buy the expended munitions and fuel argument as if the only instance of units suffering wear and tear is in combat.

 

[jagdtigerciv]

Why does it cost supplies to have arrows rain down on you, without you doing anything but sitting in your tank?

And someone is going to answer my questions this time.
Seriously, it feels like when I make a point it's just getting ignored rather than addressed.

Because your point is moot. Regardless of what you say, we have given you the answer that you find difficult to understand:

1. It is a game mechanic, it's there for balance to discourage steamrolling with a very limited supply of units. Yes, you should be rewarded for teching up -- thats why you have a Mech Infantry with 50 strength and 4 moves, not 50 strength, 4 moves AND invincible. The chance is there. Once again, you're not literally fighting swordsmen, it is a representation of a balanced game mechanic.

2. The rationalization that has been presented you seem to have argument with -- that somehow complex military actions against other undertechnologically human beings should have absolutely no human cost whatsoever. We're saying it does, it may be -2% less efficiency, or -7.557%, but in the game it is represented at -10% because that is as low as the game's mechanics allow.

In my opinion, and I believe others out there, is that no matter how much more advanced you are than an enemy army, it will still take at the very least, some effort to route them. They're human bodies that oppose your faction's allegiance. They're not going to just disappear easily.

Also, if you're so often fighting extremely unadvanced units, bump the difficulty up or stop playing Babylon.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I just can't buy the expended munitions and fuel argument as if the only instance of units suffering wear and tear is in combat.

Well units suffer Additional Wear+Tear in combat.

Indeed it is possible every turn your unit is just sitting there it is taking 1 damage, from training activities, etc. and healing it... participating in combat just removes the option to heal that 1 damage (when the unit is moving it doesn't do its training activities)

So there is you're rule..1 damage=automatic when doing anything but moving. (and healing is actually more effective than thought)

 

[elwin00]

Don't forget about friendly fire!

 

[Txurce]

Don't forget about friendly fire!

It was worth digging into your twice-yearly allotment of posts for that one!

 

[SRG]

It was worth digging into your twice-yearly allotment of posts for that one!

It was a good point, though.

 

[Rex_Mundi]

This is a rule that was introduced to reduce the effectiveness of the four horsemen of doom.

As a rule I don't mind it, but I do agree that it is not realistic.
If they want to keep the rule they should however also introduce the same rule for a warship when it steamrolls an embarked millitary unit.

Tank attack spearman 1 dammage.
Trireme attacks tank in the water 0 dammage.

For the people that defend the supply argument for why aircraft loose 10% HP when attacking, why does artillery and archers not when shooting?

 

[Montov]

I like the 'rule', because it is good for gameplay. It is slowing a carpet of doom slightly; it gives cost to war; it gives backwerd civs a small change to make an impact. I like it.

 

[Trias]

It's pretty much self-explanatory. Civ5 utilizes rules that are similar to chess. And the 1 dmg rule is clearly a rule for the sake of having a rule, which you don't typically see with advanced computer games.

Oh RLY?

Could you please name one of these so called advanced computer games, that does not have some rules, that are there just for the sake of gameplay?

 

[deanej]

To say the 1 dmg rule is a rule just for the sake of having one is an unsubstantiated claim. It proves nothing.

And how are Civ5 rules similar to chess?

I can't put it any better than this: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10455413&postcount=20

Oh RLY?

Could you please name one of these so called advanced computer games, that does not have some rules, that are there just for the sake of gameplay?

Star Trek: Bridge Commander, SimCity 4...

 

[Txurce]

I can't put it any better than this: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10455413&postcount=20

If you're saying that hexes and 1upt make Civ a board game, but squares and stacks did not... then I would say that you aren't very many familiar with board games.

If you're talking about lack of realism in that a tile equals x square miles, etc, while going on about GDR's fighting ancient warriors, then you have a highly selective sense of what's realistic and what isn't.

 

[deanej]

How is a tile representing X square miles unrealistic? Have you ever seen an Earth map?

 

[Txurce]

How is a tile representing X square miles unrealistic? Have you ever seen an Earth map?

I have no problem with its realism (or lack of it). Given the link you posted in place of your own answer, I assumed that you find it unrealistic that an archer fires hundreds of miles on an Earth map from one tile to another.

 

[deanej]

It is, which is why ranged combat onto anything more than the adjacent tile is unrealistic. Not the fact that the tile represents x square miles.

 

[Txurce]

It is, which is why ranged combat onto anything more than the adjacent tile is unrealistic. Not the fact that the tile represents x square miles.

Sounds like you have a permanent problem with every existing (and likely future) version of Civ.

But not enough of a problem to debate the scoring of GDR vs Warrior death matches.

Okie dokie.

 

[deanej]

I don't recall ranged units (other than aircraft) in civ4.

 

[number51]

If you launch a squadron of jet fighters against barbarian warrior, the jets should not get an automatic 10% damage.

I get it, to fuel, arm, launch, and land jet aircraft their will be an occasional loss even if they attack a houseplant, plus the supply and readiness reduction. But losing one out of ten is ridicules, maybe one damage every 20 or 30 attacks.

 

[Txurce]

I don't recall ranged units (other than aircraft) in civ4.

I'm talking about aircraft. While you measure an Earth map for realism regarding fighter vs jet fighter vs bomber range, factor railroads that have unlimited travel range, and tell me how you square that. Or for that matter, a battle taking 40 years. Or...

 

[deanej]

I'm talking about aircraft.

I'm talking about archers shooting over the English channel.

factor railroads that have unlimited travel range

Railroads haven't had unlimited travel range since civ3 (and the only civ game I've actually played is civ4).

a battle taking 40 years.

The year display is purely cosmetic and doesn't impact anything (it can, and should, be ignored). Archers firing over the English channel is a lot more than cosmetic.

 

[Txurce]

I'm talking about archers shooting over the English channel.

Railroads haven't had unlimited travel range since civ3 (and the only civ game I've actually played is civ4).

The year display is purely cosmetic and doesn't impact anything (it can, and should, be ignored). Archers firing over the English channel is a lot more than cosmetic.

Since you've only played Civ 4...

Earth maps strike me as the epitome of unrealistic play. I looked at it once and never went back. Unlimited stacks are equally unrealistic, especially when they fit in the same Terra bottlenecks that one unit can also fill.