The Civ IV Combat System

[Risa]

One note: Withdrawn units do get experience if their opponents laterly get destroyed by other units in the same turn. That is why catapults/cannons often gain promotion after sending them to attack a city even if they themselves didn't take down a single defender.

That also means Flank promotion worths more than it seems. One need more units to do the same quest, but he gets more experienced ones, by sharing (maybe doubling) xp between withdrawer and finisher.

[Chemical Ollie]

I don't like the combat system at all. I think it's a step backwards from Civ3, which was not perfect either. Artillery units should NOT be able to attack, only bombard.

And I really miss combined arms, which was one of the best things about CTP. Now your units have to attack one by one, not taking advantage of infantry holding ground while the cavallery is flanking and artillery and machine guns giving supporting fire.

[Mujadaddy]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
I don't like the combat system at all. I think it's a step backwards from Civ3, which was not perfect either. Artillery units should NOT be able to attack, only bombard.

And I really miss combined arms, which was one of the best things about CTP. Now your units have to attack one by one, not taking advantage of infantry holding ground while the cavallery is flanking and artillery and machine guns giving supporting fire.

I have coined a phrase for siege units: "Steel-on-Target." You pay Hammers for steel-on-target. There's no more sure bet than city-attack siege units kamikaze-ing into a city, then mopping up with whatever else you brought. I've fought wars of extermination with JUST four or five riflemen and all the rest cannons.... It is truly brutal.

"Combined arms" --- it's different, not gone. The thing about Civ(<4)-to-Civ4 is that the tiles are conceptually HUGE now, MUCH larger than in previous versions... This necessitates THINKING much larger. Your infantry ARE holding ground...whatever is in the stack, your "combined arms" will defend with the best defender. On teh attack, it's YOUR job to "General" the best attacker into attacking first, mopping up with other units afterward...to sum up, the GAME is different---you need to adapt.

[Dubhghlas]

Originally posted by Mujadaddy "Combined arms" --- it's different, not gone. The thing about Civ(<4)-to-Civ4 is that the tiles are conceptually HUGE now, MUCH larger than in previous versions... This necessitates THINKING much larger. Your infantry ARE holding ground...whatever is in the stack, your "combined arms" will defend with the best defender. On teh attack, it's YOUR job to "General" the best attacker into attacking first, mopping up with other units afterward...to sum up, the GAME is different---you need to adapt.

The system is stupid in that you can "attack" with, say, catapults. A unit of catapults can't attack a city; you need infantry or, perhaps, mounted knights (a la "Once more into the breach..." from Henry V). I agree that this is a step back in concept from Civ 3. Worse, Call to Power still has a better concept about how battle between armies is arranged; say what you will, it doesn't involve sequential attacks by individual types of unit.

The GAME may be different, but that doesn't keep it from being a stupid system.

[Mujadaddy]

Originally posted by Dubhghlas
The system is stupid in that you can "attack" with, say, catapults. A unit of catapults can't attack a city; you need infantry or, perhaps, mounted knights (a la "Once more into the breach..." from Henry V).

What do you think catapults do? As I said above, the concept for siege units is that you're building the AMMUNITION for them; that ammunition is very effective, but when it's gone, you need more of it...

Originally posted by Dubhghlas I agree that this is a step back in concept from Civ 3. Worse, Call to Power still has a better concept about how battle between armies is arranged; say what you will, it doesn't involve sequential attacks by individual types of unit.

The GAME may be different, but that doesn't keep it from being a stupid system.

Civ4 (or 3, 2, 1) isn't a wargame. "Realism" (whatever that means to the beholder) takes a back seat to playability. I'm enjoying the new system, now that I've spent the time to learn it. YMMV

[Mountain Sage]

Ah, I find your thread very interesting, even if I don't understand a da*n about it.

As everybody knows, I'm not a scientific (or computer) guy...

I'm (almost) proud of it...

On top of that, I like playing Civ as a 'flowing game'.

Using a calculator and start punching in numbers and formulae, just to calculate the odds of a battle between a Warrior and an Axeman, just gives me the creeps and spoils the game (and fun).

Therefore, I have a very simple (and basic) question:

Could somebody please produce a table, a very simple table, not necessary 100% foolproof, but just a table stating for instance that:

'Warrior (attacking) vs. Sperman (defending): odds xx% of winning"

"Warrior (defending) vs. Wolves (attacking): odds xx%"

That would be enough for me. If you just would realize the number of hours I spent playing those silly little battles, just to get the "feeling" of it...

Now, If you also could provide me (us?) with a table like:

"Warrior (attacking) from a forest tile vs. Spearman (defending) on a hill tile" or

" Axeman (attacking) vs. Sperman (defending) in a city"

THAT I could rally use...

PS: don't forget to add directly the x% bonus or malus in the final figures, I still have trouble between adding them or multiplying them...

[Jaybe]

MS, I haven't got the preserverence to try to understand all the nuances of all the math either (I don't know what a lot of the higher math terms are in the first place).

But essentially, I understand that if you have at least 1.5 times the calculated value of the opponent (using the Alt key calculation) AND your unit is near full strength, you can be REASONABLY assured of victory. I will allow being at 3/4 strength if I have twice their value, or be even more flexible if the opponent is also worn down.

I see your unit vs. unit tables as not being practical, because of all the modifiers available, such as terrain, promotions, etc.

Yes, there is still the missing element of what your DEFENDING odds are.

[SpencerH]

Use the alt- mouseover or 'go to' (with mouse). The odds are calc-ed for you in the lower left box. It wont tell you whether you win but it is better than guessing (and usually losing).

[Dubhghlas]

Originally posted by Mujadaddy
What do you think catapults do? As I said above, the concept for siege units is that you're building the AMMUNITION for them; that ammunition is very effective, but when it's gone, you need more of it...

Either you are being intentionally obtuse, or you are not paying attention. Either that, or you are simply an apologist who can't accept that a "bad thing" doesn't necessarily spoil a game.

If the catapults were doing nothing more than softening up the city, either by tearing down the fortifications (the bombard function), or by lowering the morale of the defenders (some limited form of attack, like they had in SMAC), that would be fine. But you can actually capture a city with nothing but a unit of catapults. That is plain stupid, not just unrealistic, but stupid. To justify that, you have to go so far out on a limb of fantasy in explanation, the limb will crack of its own weight in the process.

I'm enjoying the game, too. But that doesn't mean I can't spot stupid programming concepts.

[Hauptman]

The simplest formula for combat is...

If your attack is higher than their defense, you will win, baring whether the RNG hates you.

The hard part is finding your attack and his defense numbers (if your alt key has fallen off). A swordsman with city attack one vs an archer in a 40% city.

6.25 atk vs 4.6 def. Swordsman is most likely to win and will take roughly 4.6 damage from its MODIFIED number. (RNG changes this greatly)

As it was said before, Hold the alt key and mouse-over the unit you wish to attack and it does the math.



RNG = "random number generator" for those who havent heard that before.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Dubhghlas
But you can actually capture a city with nothing but a unit of catapults.

If that is true, then I would agree that they should join gunships in the "cannot capture city" category.

Other than that, you obviously refuse to stretch your imagination when necessary (though I also would prefer a "better" artillery system, with counter-battery fire and all that).

[Mujadaddy]

Eeeeeverybody wants to change the game

Originally posted by Dubhghlas
Either you are being intentionally obtuse, or you are not paying attention. Either that, or you are simply an apologist who can't accept that a "bad thing" doesn't necessarily spoil a game.

If the catapults were doing nothing more than softening up the city, either by tearing down the fortifications (the bombard function), or by lowering the morale of the defenders (some limited form of attack, like they had in SMAC), that would be fine. But you can actually capture a city with nothing but a unit of catapults. That is plain stupid, not just unrealistic, but stupid. To justify that, you have to go so far out on a limb of fantasy in explanation, the limb will crack of its own weight in the process.

I'm enjoying the game, too. But that doesn't mean I can't spot stupid programming concepts.

I don't think that I have to defend a game that has been published...released...and purchased. You, however, haven't budged an inch on the idea that the game is much more "strategic" than the previous versions (in a large scale/small scale sense).

"Lowering the morale of the defenders" Good god man, collateral damage? Hello, McFly!

"STUPID" was the Civ3 system of absolutely capturable artillery...

[Dubhghlas]

Originally posted by Mujadaddy
Eeeeeverybody wants to change the game I don't think that I have to defend a game that has been published...released...and purchased. You, however, haven't budged an inch on the idea that the game is much more "strategic" than the previous versions (in a large scale/small scale sense).

"Lowering the morale of the defenders" Good god man, collateral damage? Hello, McFly!

"STUPID" was the Civ3 system of absolutely capturable artillery...

Let's compare systems. Let's compare the concept of artillery from, oh, say, SMAC, where artillery does damage to unit morale. Or the concept of CTP, where artillery is used in a battle to do what artillery DOES in a battle; soften up the other side so that they aren't as capable in battle.

The issue isn't whether there are aspects of the game engine that are better. The sole and whole issue which sparked our exchange of words was the very specific assertion that this one aspect of the engine was flawed. It is. Admit it.

[Urban Ranger]

Why isn't this thread topped?

[swat-spas2]

Defender odds for your units are in the combat event log. You can scroll through, and not only does it show the starting variables, it gives you odds. I believe (if i recall correctly) these are odds to win any round of combat and thus deal damage, not to win the entire battle.

To solve artillery:
I say add in a counter-battery option. It would create a system similar to CTP and civ3 (albeit in different ways and effectiveness) where artillery in a city to defend could weaken the assault somewhat . There is a slight counter already, in that you can chase down the catapults with mounted units prior to the siege. This could also make the computer slightly better at defending, since it often has suicide cats (or better) around when you approach a city near the border at least. This could work similar to the AA system where damage is done to the offensive unit, but perhaps less often, and either no or less damage to the defensive, silencing the guns essentially.