A kinder, gentler point about the combat system

[vee4473]

The point that the combat system in civ 4 (i HATE that CIV tag) has castrated units by eliminating a/d values in favor of one overall combat value, is one that I have been wrestling with.

I AM attracted to the overall system and the "cntrl mousover" to determine odds is awesome, but I have some questions.

The point that units lose what makes them the unit that they are because of this system is noteworthy. Meaning that they lose an attack advantage because of the elimination of that value.

If a tank has its overall value reduced by half due to combat, even though damage would indeed make it less efective in combat, should it really be put into a position where it has no attack value over a more primative unit?

Which is what the current system seems to be doing.

Perhaps it was an effort to make damaged units less effective regardless of what they are. Giving more primitive defenders a chance.

I kind of agree with that to a point. Yet it seems odd at the same time.

AND, the upgrade system is great and seems to be a substantial balance to this system.

I've played civ 4 many hours by now. I don't pretend to understand it fully yet.

Just want the input of others.

[Hamdinger]

I've been wondering whether or not the combat system would be improved if the chance to hit in a round was not affected by the health of the unit at the beginning of combat. I'd leave the damage a unit does with a successful hit the same, though (i.e. - affected by the health of the unit).

[logan_jiang]

We have heard of the spearman defeating a fresh off the line tank in civ III. That doesn't seem to happen in civ IV, however it is true that several inferior units can take out a superior unit. But think about it in context, eventually even the most primitive society will figure out how to dig a tank trap.

[Nacht]

I think that the fact that damaged units have less strength and the elimination of the a/d stats are basicly unrelated.

[Cort Haus]

Maybe we need a special Tank vs Spearman forum for all these debates. There are so many threads on this subject.

[Hamdinger]

The spearman vs. tank thing doesn't bother me. I'm concerned with the effectiveness of a non-full strength unit. This affects battles between equivalent units as well as battles between primitive and advanced units. Admittedly I haven't done the math, but I believe two half strength tanks will still have a significant disadvantage fighting one full strength tank. So I'm wondering if there's too much of a penalty for being below full strength. That's why I suggested changing the hit chance but not the damage done.

Perhaps someone with a combat calculator can tell me the odds of a half-strength tank beating a full-strength tank. From there we could figure out the chance of two of them against one full-strength tank.

[Tiberius]

I find this odd as well. This way a 50% damaged unit with an initial strength of 20 becomes weaker than a fully healed unit with a strength of 10. This is kind of strange.

Sure, you can say that a half batallion of tanks can only do half as much damage as a full batallion, but even so, it is not intuitive. Most players will think that a half damaged tank is just as strong as a fully healed one.

Moreover, if I understand it correctly from the "Civ IV Combat System" thread, the hold-down-right-mouse-button will show you the chances for a one-round fight only, not for the outcome of the whole battle, and since the tank (or any other unit) has only 50% of his hitpoints remaining, his chances are actually much smaller than the shown number.

Maybe I misunderstood something, but if I am right, "wrong" battle outcomes will cause some annoyance among the regular civ players.

[Cabbagemeister]

Originally posted by Tiberius
I find this odd as well. This way a 50% damaged unit with an initial strength of 20 becomes weaker than a fully healed unit with a strength of 10. This is kind of strange.

Sure, you can say that a half batallion of tanks can only do half as much damage as a full batallion, but even so, it is not intuitive. Most players will think that a half damaged tank is just as strong as a fully healed one.

Moreover, if I understand it correctly from the "Civ IV Combat System" thread, the hold-down-right-mouse-button will show you the chances for a one-round fight only, not for the outcome of the whole battle, and since the tank (or any other unit) has only 50% of his hitpoints remaining, his chances are actually much smaller than the shown number.

Maybe I misunderstood something, but if I am right, "wrong" battle outcomes will cause some annoyance among the regular civ players.

I agree with this. I think it is extremely deceptive that a half-strength, 10-power tank is probably at a DISADVANTAGE (or close to even, maybe) compared to a full-strength, 8-power maceman, because the tank has half as many hitpoints. Forget about the realism issues. If the in-game combat calculator says "10 vs 8," I should have a very high chance of winning, rather than an even or less-than-even (I don't want to do the math) chance.

I think Civ4 should have a combat calculator that shows you actual ODDS (e.g., "45% chance of victory, 8% chance of retreat") rather than these decptive numbers. Otherwise, the strategy has to be "never, EVER attack with damaged units, beacuse you have no clue whether you'll win or not." This is not desireable.

[khearn]

Originally posted by Hamdinger
Perhaps someone with a combat calculator can tell me the odds of a half-strength tank beating a full-strength tank. From there we could figure out the chance of two of them against one full-strength tank.

Half strength Tank attacking Full strength Tank:
10/20 vs. 20/20
Damaged Tank wins: 0.10%
Healthy Tank wins: 99.90%
Conclusion: Don't attack with half-dead units.

A unit that has taken 50% casualties in real life is not a functional unit. Chain of command is all messed up, tanks from one battalion are put together with tanks from another battalion that they aren't used to working with, troops are working under officers that don't know (and thus don't fully trust), no one knows who to get resupply (or even coffee) from, etc.

Civ 4 may go a little too far in penalizing damaged units, but it is realistic that a damaged unit is much worse than a full-strength one.

Keith

[vee4473]

From Solver's thread on how combat works:

"When two units do battle, they're the attacker and the defender. The first thing to take into consideration is their strength. That means their wounded strength and any modifiers. In other words, a 20-strength unit that is half-damage and at 10/20 strength, actually has the strength of 10 in combat. Now, modifiers are applied to the unit strength."

I said the following in another thread, but it applies here more I think and is the point that I think is trying to be made:

In previous games under the attack/defense value system, a wounded tank still had those superior attack/defense values against an inferior opponent and thus still had an advantage even though weakened.
A wounded tank could do much damage before finally succumbing to destruction by more primitive units.

Under the new system, a weakened tank seems to be no more powerful than a more primitive unit of the same "overall" value.

Perhaps this was meant to simulate something, but it is a legitimate point to say that it seems odd that an advanced unit is only advanced until it gets damaged, then it has no more advantage in battle.

I mean, a wounded modern armor in civ3 could take out many a more primitive unit before exploding in that puff of smoke.

Which seems reasonable since even wounded tanks would have some sort of advantage over a full strength less advanced unit.

Somehow, this game is still incredibly fun and I do like it alot.

[Aileron]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Maybe we need a special Tank vs Spearman forum for all these debates. There are so many threads on this subject.

I also mentioned that in another spear vs tank thread, BUT I was just kidding! AND, this is not a spear vs tank thread, but a civ 4 combat is broken thread.

Reality aside, I think is unintuitive that an injured unit does less damage than a healthy one. I wasn't even aware of that, until reading this thread. Amazing the amount of things the civ 4 manual DOESN'T tell you.

I also don't like the idea that they've removed attack and defense values. Adding promotions is interesting, but do they really matter that much when you need like 3-4 times as many attacking units vs defending units when taking a city (that's what I've found anyway)? Some people have been saying Stack Of Doom is dead. I've found that it's alive, well, and more necessary than ever.

Is it just me, or did anyone else like the 3-value system they had in Call to Power: Attack, Defense, and Firepower?

[Aileron]

Sorry, 4-value. Attack, Defense, Firepower and Hit Points.

[vee4473]

Originally posted by khearn


Half strength Tank attacking Full strength Tank:
10/20 vs. 20/20
Damaged Tank wins: 0.10%
Healthy Tank wins: 99.90%
Conclusion: Don't attack with half-dead units.

A unit that has taken 50% casualties in real life is not a functional unit. Chain of command is all messed up, tanks from one battalion are put together with tanks from another battalion that they aren't used to working with, troops are working under officers that don't know (and thus don't fully trust), no one knows who to get resupply (or even coffee) from, etc.

Civ 4 may go a little too far in penalizing damaged units, but it is realistic that a damaged unit is much worse than a full-strength one.

Keith

Certainly a half damaged tank is worse against a full tank, but the point being made is that a half damaged modern unit should not be put on the same level ,or below,as a full strength less powerful unit. The modern unit should take damage, but not lose the firepower advantage.

Of course the point is not to attack with half dead units, but having damage put a tank close to par with a knight is odd. And using just one overall strength value can indeed do this.

It is indeed a gameplay choice that goes in favor of those who may not have the best army, but can bombard modern units onto a level that can be dealt with better.

It does slow the pace of a conquest game down, since you MUST heal units.

I could be wrong about my understanding of how the system works.

[vee4473]

Originally posted by Aileron


I also mentioned that in another spear vs tank thread, BUT I was just kidding! AND, this is not a spear vs tank thread, but a civ 4 combat is broken thread.

true, I am not sure it is broken though. I'm still fooling with it and expressing a few thoughts.

[Tiberius]

I wouldn't say the combat is broken. First of all, I haven't played it enough to make a valid opinion. Second, what I've seen so far is within normal limits, considering that they've changed the combat system completely. Like every new system, it needs to be tweaked.

Sure, there are things that I don't like in this new combat model, but I don't think it's broken.