Initial attack blues in CivIV?

[patcon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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%.

[Nikolai]

I've seen this in cIIIv numerous times, actually sometimes it seems like it's not only the first unit this happens to either...

[Lancer]

So you too have noticed a first attack failure rate far above average?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lancer
Boris, first attack of each turn.

I haven't experienced it, then. I'm currently playing a game on Emperor level, and I have definitely won the initial attacks of turns many times.

[Datajack Franit]

never heard about this