A kinder, gentler point about the combat system

[SebP]

I haven't really fought that much but the idea of hitpoints, actual combat strength and so on all being the same value strikes me as somehow odd and unintuitive, too.

However i don't think that combat is broken because of that. First, even with same actual hitpoints, because of new unit classes, more modern units sometimes have no natural counter among units of lower tech levels, at least for much lower tech levels. They should thus be much easier to use and the possibility of tactical errors decreases.
This is true for Tanks, and i think to an extent it is also true for the gunpowder units (admittedly, there is something like a vs. gunpowder upgrade for old units)


Also, from what i've seen formulawise, it should take a while for a MUCH stronger unit to even lose much in the first few fights.often you will go undamaged. only after they lose a few hitpoints, they will lose more ever faster. it happens with units of the same age if you use them wisely, i think it should be all the more the case with much stornger units

But as is said i haven't fought much to date, and nearly never against lower tech units. So maybe i shouldn't have posted in the first place

[Nacht]

Originally posted by Aileron
Amazing the amount of things the civ 4 manual DOESN'T tell you.

Check page 43. It's under 'The Basics, combat'

[vee4473]

I do not think it is broken either.

I have said that I am having great fun with the game.
I was just expressing a point that stuck out in my head.

And I do enjoy the combat.

[khumak]

I like the new combat system so far except that those pesky barbarians keep getting axemen before me

[Aileron]

Originally posted by Nacht

Check page 43. It's under 'The Basics, combat'

Oops, sorry, must have missed it. My bad.

[Aileron]

Ok, do I need to go back and edit my post to change the word "broken"? I do not think civ 4 combat is "broken" in the sense that "it's broken and I'm never playing this piece of &%$* again". I think civ 4 is great. I think the combat system could be improved, possibly by making it more like CtP.

Also, I was just trying to reponse to Cort Haus's comment that this was a Spear vs Tank thread. It's not, and even if it was, so what? I say more Spear vs Tank threads!! (if that's what people really want to talk about)

[Francis Xavier]

Originally posted by Aileron
Some people have been saying Stack Of Doom is dead. I've found that it's alive, well, and more necessary than ever.

Stacks are good for mobilizing to a battlefield, but if they have any semblance of using Siege weapons, they get taken out much quicker than they would be unstacked.

I've driven back countless 10-15+ stacks with 4 or 5 cannons with + collateral damage promotion, and then delivering a coup de grace with Knights or other fast moving units that can move in, attack and retreat.

[SebP]

Originally posted by Aileron
Ok, do I need to go back and edit my post to change the word "broken"? I do not think civ 4 combat is "broken" in the sense that "it's broken and I'm never playing this piece of &%$* again". I think civ 4 is great. I think the combat system could be improved, possibly by making it more like CtP.

I'm sorry too. I didn't mean to imply you were some of those whiners who just can't appreciate the glory that is civ 4 (there don't seem to be awfully many of that sort with civ 4, btw...) ;-)
Also, i wasn't under the impression that you didn't like the game. Btw. I can even understand the ones that are really pissed of with one of the civ-games, be it CIV or another part of the series... not everyone likes the same in civ so obviously, the changes made will destroy the game for a few people. i'd hate to be one of those (though luckily i never was, well, i didn't like civ3 first, but it got better). i'd hate to, because this is civ :-)


My post was more about making a point than about me being defensive about a game (that i admittedly already like a lot), which would be way stupid i guess.

Concerning CTP, i don't really know the combat system, the games just weren't immersive to me. I sometimes hear that the strength of ctp combat is some sort of advanced combined arms approach, however you don't seem to be referring to that. The Attack/Defense/Hitpoints/Firepower System sounds very much like what Civ2 and Alpha Centauri used however. Is is basically the same? I like the new System better because in civ2 and civ3 you would basically just build the most cost effective attack defense unit. Which you can't do here. The Alpha Centauri Combat System incorporated all of it, Attack/Defense/Hitpoints (no Firepower though if i recall correctly Civ2 had it) + Special Bonuses (vs fast units, Defendig vs. Air) all combined at will - and at a shield cost. I liked that system a lot, however there was more complexity than needed and ever used, as there were such things as best combinations. it had, however, a (weaker) notion of counter units. so it was in fact somewhere between civ2 and civ4

I just noticed that all this talk is pretty much useless because really i should be talking about CTP, just that i can't, and so i'm publicly discussing with myself a probably totally different matter (CIV4 vs SMAC/X)
But concerning this matter i think i prefer Civ 4 (except for the suicide artillery). I think Civ 4 wouldn't gain from Attack/Defense Values because there is enough complexity in the Counter System already. I might agree though, that the notion of penalizing a hurt unit so much is at least debatable. As i said i have to fight more. before coming to a conclusion.
But what the heck, since it just came to my mind, i would like to add another supposedly clever point to the one made in my first post: modern units (with higher maximum hitpoints) heal faster in terms of actual hitpoints and thus combat strength gained per turn. One more advantage, though not in an actual fight, but over the course of a campaign.

EDIT: safety smileys added

[V3nom]

I would just like to say that I LOVE the new combat system. You can argue that its illogical all you want, but the fact is that it is extremely well balanced.

To those who dont think a damaged unit should do less damage, you have to remember that a unit doesnt represent a SINGLE knight or tank but rather a squad of them. a half damaged unit has half its squads lying as smoldering ruins, of course its not going to be doing as much damage.

[vee4473]

but a half "squad" of tanks is still more powerful than a full squad of musketmen for example. In the game, that isn't true.

a damaged tank is still powerful if the gun works.

The point has been made, you agree/you don't.

actual attack strengths seem to have been taken away. And any modern advantage is only for the first round.

it is different, but i can live with it.

[vee4473]

and by the way, the point about a half health knight or something being equal in combat to say a unit that has, at full health, the same strength as the half strength knight is not really debatable.

It has been confirmed that combat looks at pure strength values (with modifiers), not any modern unit attack power as before, and that is what takes away the sense of having a modern unit to begin with, because unless it has full health, it gains zero advantage for actually being a more modern and powerful unit. And therefore a rifleman can turn out to be nothing more than a maceman with cooler artwork.

that's all, like i said, i can live with it.

[RobC]

Originally posted by Aileron
Some people have been saying Stack Of Doom is dead. I've found that it's alive, well, and more necessary than ever.

It's not dead, but it's balanced by catapult/cannon/artillery collateral damage. Of course, the AI doesn't use quite as many of these as I'd like, but try your single SoD strategy in MP sometime.

[V3nom]

all it means is that you have to actually keep units healed for them to be effective. Also the benifit isnt just there for the first round. Sure its only the first round in which they're likely to have their full strength, but because of their greater strength they'll survive with more health then they otherwise would, which means they'll do more damage in the next attack than they would have if they were a less-modern unit etc etc etc.. its a trickle down effect.

[vee4473]

I understand that that is what it means.

Once again, the only point is that having to keep full health or else your unit really isn't what it says it is, lends a certain "oddness" to the equation.

Especially when players have become accustomed to having modern units actually retain a certain level of combat power (as a result of being modern and more powerful) even when wounded.

But, I certainly see advantages to this system, and I can adapt!!

[Pickles78uk]

But the way i see it, and have experienced the combat system so far is that if you attack with a unit you will damage the unit you are atacking, thus reducing his power and hitpoints! If you retreat then you run and heal...live to fight another day, send in your fresher units to finnish the job.