Initial attack blues in CivIV?

Lancer · July 28, 2005, 20:20

I've noticed that on my first attack in CivIII that I almost always lose. It's gotten to the point that I always hit first with a junk unit before going in with the real thing. I suppose this is another way to tilt things towards the AI because of its limitations but it is a bit...frustrating. Will initial attack blues continue in CivIV? Anyone know?

1889 · July 28, 2005, 20:32

I've never noticed that. Could it be that you lose because you're attacking with a junk unit.

Tassadar500 · July 28, 2005, 23:02

Originally posted by Lancer
I've noticed that on my first attack in CivIII that I almost always lose. It's gotten to the point that I always hit first with a junk unit before going in with the real thing. I suppose this is another way to tilt things towards the AI because of its limitations but it is a bit...frustrating. Will initial attack blues continue in CivIV? Anyone know?

I think the RNG Gods don't like you.

Kuciwalker · July 28, 2005, 23:29

It's because Warriors suck.

Jaybe · July 29, 2005, 00:11

Well, Warriors wouldn't be so bad in civ3 if they were a 2-1-1 instead of 1-1-1. Make spears 2-2-1 while you're at it, and archers 1-2-1.

I've got to stop coming here. It is still months till release, and there is just a bunch of speculation and heresay here (with infrequent exceptions). Back to studying about a REAL empire (the Roman one), literature, and some CtP2 AoM.

Lancer · July 29, 2005, 00:58

Not just warriors but everything else. Check it out, play a game of Civ 3. Attacks that should win usually lose if it's the first attack. My use of junk units is a result of this, not the cause. I use em to lose em, since it's likely I'll lose the first combat anyway. Not every time, but something is holding the statistical laws in contempt...

Solver · July 29, 2005, 07:39

Since Civ4 units only have one Strength value, combat is going to be different. Hopefully for the better.

Ninot · July 29, 2005, 09:43

Originally posted by Solver
Since Civ4 units only have one Strength value, combat is going to be different. Hopefully for the better.

I'm not very hopeful on that.

Promotions look like something to be hopeful about, but the 1 combat value looks unnescescarily dumbed down.

Solver · July 29, 2005, 09:45

Promotions look like something to be hopeful about, but the 1 combat value looks unnescescarily dumbed down.

It's not dumbed down, it's more of a way to ensure fair combat results unlike the semi-random crap in Civ3. Soren (or was it Jesse?) said that basically, it means that firepower is back as unit deals damage proportional to its own strength. If so, that is going to provide much more fair combat results.

Plus, it looks like with all the promotions and other bonuses that have been mentioned (such as the archer bonus at city defense) there will actually be more variables involved in Civ4 combat than there were in Civ3.

Alex · July 29, 2005, 09:47

I think that the first thing I'll attack in CivIV is going to be a wild animal...

hexagonian · July 29, 2005, 10:18

Originally posted by Jaybe
It is still months till release...Back to some CtP2 AoM.

Since civ4 isn't going to be out for a few months yet, this is a good suggestion to fill the time.

Might make for some interesting comparisons too...

Boris Godunov · July 29, 2005, 13:03

Originally posted by Lancer
Not just warriors but everything else. Check it out, play a game of Civ 3. Attacks that should win usually lose if it's the first attack. My use of junk units is a result of this, not the cause. I use em to lose em, since it's likely I'll lose the first combat anyway. Not every time, but something is holding the statistical laws in contempt...

I'm not sure what you mean by "first attack." First attack of the game? The first from a stack? What?

patcon · July 29, 2005, 16:09

Originally posted by Solver
Since Civ4 units only have one Strength value, combat is going to be different. Hopefully for the better.

I actually liked the different attack/defend strengths. It made for decisions - do I want to be aggressive or defensive?
I also liked the Civ2 concept of increased defense against certain units - like pikemen against mounted units.

That said, as long as the units have different modifiers against different types of units, I'm OK with one basic strength number. Tanks should be stronger against tanks than against infantry.

Jaybe · July 29, 2005, 16:36

Ninot, are you trying to say that "fast" units being the (almost) exclusive attackers in civ3 was better!?
Being a historical wargamer since the mid-60's, it was a most galling feature, and I adjusted A/D strengths as soon as I could do so.

Solver · July 29, 2005, 16:41

I actually liked the different attack/defend strengths. It made for decisions - do I want to be aggressive or defensive?

That was no decision. In Civ3, for instance, it meant that you put the unit with the best defense value in cities, then spam the unit with the best attack number a lot and attack the enemy ad nauseum.

patcon · July 29, 2005, 16:55

Originally posted by Solver

I actually liked the different attack/defend strengths. It made for decisions - do I want to be aggressive or defensive?

That was no decision. In Civ3, for instance, it meant that you put the unit with the best defense value in cities, then spam the unit with the best attack number a lot and attack the enemy ad nauseum.

I disagree. Yes, I made sure to keep good defenders in cities. But rather than simply send stacks of modern armor out, I would mix in some mech infantry. The MA would do the attacking and the MI would be there to protect the MA from counterattack. The same thing would occur with cavalry and riflemen. Since the better defensive units are usually slower, the question becomes "Do I rush into an attack with good attackers, leaving them vulnerable, or do I make sure to wait for the good defenders?" As much as posters lament the lack of a need for combined arms forces, having units which are good at attack, but not at defense, would seem to reward those players who can properly manage combned arms.

Kuciwalker · July 29, 2005, 17:10

Originally posted by Solver

I actually liked the different attack/defend strengths. It made for decisions - do I want to be aggressive or defensive?

That was no decision. In Civ3, for instance, it meant that you put the unit with the best defense value in cities, then spam the unit with the best attack number a lot and attack the enemy ad nauseum.

that's not what I did...

Addled Platypus · July 29, 2005, 17:27

when in doubt lead off with a bombard unit

I counting on my first three bombards to miss!

thank you RNG gods in advance

patcon · July 29, 2005, 17:50

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
when in doubt lead off with a bombard unit

Absolutely, once I have something better than catapults. They suck. (And trebuchets aren't much better!) There's nothing like bringing in some arty to reduce the defenders to 1 HP each before unleashing the hounds to feast on the crippled remains.

Lancer · July 29, 2005, 20:51

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

I'm not sure what you mean by "first attack." First attack of the game? The first from a stack? What?

Boris, first attack of each turn.

Addled Platypus · July 30, 2005, 02:07

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

I'm not sure what you mean by "first attack." First attack of the game? The first from a stack? What?

Originally posted by Lancer

Boris, first attack of each turn.

all those other deffintions work as well

Yarco_TW · July 31, 2005, 08:55

Originally posted by patcon

I disagree. Yes, I made sure to keep good defenders in cities. But rather than simply send stacks of modern armor out, I would mix in some mech infantry. The MA would do the attacking and the MI would be there to protect the MA from counterattack. The same thing would occur with cavalry and riflemen. Since the better defensive units are usually slower, the question becomes "Do I rush into an attack with good attackers, leaving them vulnerable, or do I make sure to wait for the good defenders?" As much as posters lament the lack of a need for combined arms forces, having units which are good at attack, but not at defense, would seem to reward those players who can properly manage combned arms.

I agree with patcon 100%.