Does anyone else like the new combat system?

[Pythagoras]

I like the fact that you cant go half-hazardly into a '3rd world' country. You have to take things carefully even if you are a technical super-god. Maybe its not realistic that occasionally the pikeman defeats the tank, but it is fun. Without that occasional 'pikeman beats tank' the AI or us humans for that matter would never be able to try and outwit more advanced civilizations. Civilization is a game before it is a 'historical simulation' and games without balance are not fun.

If there is a problem - why not just re balance the combat system by changing the values of A/D? Adding extra stats seems to only add confusion. Giving advanced units more hitpoints only further confuses what hit points are in civ3. Hit points are related to experience and training ie How much damage a unit can take before its command structure, organization and morale break down.

Adding a firepower stat would also be redundant. Its inclusion only overlaps the attack stat. The idea is that with each succesful round more damage is done to the loser. However, if the attack stat is high enough wont more damage simply be done by the sheer winningness of rounds? Rebalancing attack/defense stats should get the same result as giving some units extra fire power.

[Akka]

Re: Does anyone else like the new combat system?

Originally posted by Pythagoras
I like the fact that you cant go half-hazardly into a '3rd world' country. You have to take things carefully even if you are a technical super-god. Maybe its not realistic that occasionally the pikeman defeats the tank, but it is fun. Without that occasional 'pikeman beats tank' the AI or us humans for that matter would never be able to try and outwit more advanced civilizations. Civilization is a game before it is a 'historical simulation' and games without balance are not fun.

If there is a problem - why not just re balance the combat system by changing the values of A/D? Adding extra stats seems to only add confusion. Giving advanced units more hitpoints only further confuses what hit points are in civ3. Hit points are related to experience and training ie How much damage a unit can take before its command structure, organization and morale break down.

Adding a firepower stat would also be redundant. Its inclusion only overlaps the attack stat. The idea is that with each succesful round more damage is done to the loser. However, if the attack stat is high enough wont more damage simply be done by the sheer winningness of rounds? Rebalancing attack/defense stats should get the same result as giving some units extra fire power.

Simply said : no.
If you want a more detailed explanation, have a look to the "firepower is not what you need..." and the "The main reason to change combat " threads, which are extensively talking about this very difference.

[Special_Olympic]

I like that you have to be careful, but it pisses me the f@ck off when I lose a cavalry to some unit that shouldn't really be able to touch me.

[cassembler]

I've learned that a single unit is NOT an army... I gotta coordinate several units, of several different types, just to be able to mount an offensive... One that will usually only take a couple of cities.

If I don't want to lose a single unit, I'll go back to playing Civ2.

[kmj]

I haven't had any troubles with it, and its simplicity is nice. My knights are kicking the the aztecs' spearmen and pikemen around without any trouble, at least no trouble when I remember to not attack across a river.

So, I'll go with 'yes'. If a spearman beats a tank every once every 70 attacks (approximately, according to http://www.columbia.edu/~sdc2002/civulator.html), I won't complain.

[Monoriu]

Yes I like the combat system the way it is. If some people are not happy with it, and want Firaxis to introduce a patch so that they have a CHOICE to use the old FP/HP system, fine, more choice is always better. But I am happy with the current system and I don't want to change it.

[Venger]

I like alot of the combat additions - bombardment is great, shared support is great, air missions are great, having separate move/numers of attacks is great. A number of great additions.

Alas, alot also either doesn't work (air missions) or doesn't make sense (can't sink ships with planes) or doesn't pass the smell test (privateer stats, early gunpowder stats) or simply is a step backwards (much lamer HP model).

The NICE thing is that the elements that the second items can be fixed easily, enhancing the first things, and making a really enjoyable game.

I personally am hoping for simply more editor options such as:

Can damage:
Land units
Sea units
Air units

Can destroy:
Land units
Sea Units
Air units

Can bombard:
Units
Improvements
Buildings

Etc. so that we can make a definitive Civ rich with variety and subtlety...look at the options you can give a settler type unit - that's what I'd like for the combat engine, and some other game facets.

Venger

[Skanky Burns]

I like the combat system. It works well, and forces you to have balanced assaults w/ artillery if you want to ensure that you win. Its annoying when a spearman/galley kills one of your high-tech units, but its not very often.

[Dis]

hell yeah

anything beats creating a whole bunch of howitzers and wiping the earth with them.

[Chronus]

I like it as well. I get the occasional weird combat result, but not often, and certainly nothing to what others have complained about. Maybe I'm just blessed.

Frankly, I do not like the idea of a weak, ancient unit NEVER being able to destroy a modern one. Make the odds a million to one if you must but PLEASE, give the warrior that ever so slim chance to destroy the Mech Infantry. Surprises do happen in reality as history has shown.

I especially like how careful planning with the various units can make a serious difference in a war. I give an example in an earlier thread that I created. Unfortunately, my thread must be an incredibly boring read because it hasn't inspired a single comment from anybody. *SIGH* It's sad being so insignificant in this forum . . .

[Sze]

It sounds to me like many of you prefer the new system because it makes the game harder. They could have made the game harder by making the computer players more intelligent. Instead, they broke combat.

[Jaybe]

The combat system works as it stands. Of course, I DO have some preferences that are not in the game*, but basically "whiners" are getting surprised by something "wierd" and then try to make a big thing about it without getting on with life (er, I mean "Civ").

Venger's Editor ideas would be nice, though I probably wouldn't end up using them.

*Yah, I want the AI to also make lots of bombardment units in the industrial/modern age. Then we can have artillery duels just like in "real war."

[Dis]

You can't make the computer player more intelligent. It is just a computer after all.

[TheHobbit]

Happy Hobbit!

I love the game and the combat system!

Suprises do happen. If you have seen Star Wars I bet noone expected fuzzy little bears to take down an entire legion of the emporers best troops. Including mechanical nightmares such as at-sts in Return of the Jedi! Yay for the little guys!

[Trifna]

My answer: No.