Attack/Defense: is there a difference?

[Trifna]

In Civ 3, units had an attack and a defense rating. But does a unit in an army REALLY get an advantage on defense when in fact the field is exactly the same?

I don't see where this big difference between attack and defense comes from. Perhaps there could be a difference between open fields (plains, mountains with roads) and the other places (forrests, cities, mountains) but I just don't see the difference between being the first to attack or being the one that sees the other coming and answers. But I DO see the difference between a tank stuck in a city with tall buildings and in the open.


Should there be a att/def difference?

[Jon Miller]

it iss because in civ there is some tactics

you basically gert to play out the battle in minature

this was even moer the case in prevous civs (the Civ3 allowing huge stacks makes it morelik e other weaker games like CTP)
\
JOn Mliler

[Maquiladora]

In CtP1/2 both the ''attacker'' and ''defender'', attack and defend each round, thats a 1v1 situation, so if a samurai 15/10 attacks another samurai and there are no bonuses to any of them, each has a 50% chance of winning. (which is actually more realistic)

[Jon Miller]

but civ is not about realism

it is about being a fun game

and has tactical elements

Jon Miller

[Maquiladora]

so realism cant be fun?

I dont see anything fun about ruling the world with 100 of the same units, or anything tactical.

[Jon Miller]

you don't

or at least that isn't the best way to do it

if you do, than I would recommend upping the difficulty level

tactics is fun, Civ is a strategic game with tactical elements

Jon Miller

[Maquiladora]

Of course, i was taking the few defenders you need as a given but we seem to be taking over another thread...

[Trifna]

Civ is not about puting some alliens in because it's "fun". It's about bringing in everything that we would see in reality AND is fun. It's about immersion.

It's not because it's a game that you can bring anything in. This is like fantasy games where someone say "Well, it's fantasy so whattever what you bring it is ok". There's coherence also.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
I dont see anything fun about ruling the world with 100 of the same units, or anything tactical.

*coughtankscough*

[Maquiladora]

shhhhhhhhhhhhh besides its always best to have a 4:1 ratio tanks with artillery.

[Solver]

Indeed... Tanks dominate Civ 3 industrial age. You can get away with using almost exclusively Tanks, with some little Arty support.

Look at the threads for some of the best conquest games played in Civ 3. They end in the human spamming a hundred Tanks, taking half the world, going Modern, upgrading to Modern Armor, and wiping the second half of the world.

[MattH]

Strategy in CIV IV combat? Ahahahaha-- 25 attackers, 1/2 defenders. Move stack. Cleanse city. Repeat.