Tweet
Finally got my copy of Civ4 the other day and what a mixed bag it is. Lots of good new stuff like more resources, Nimoy's cool musings, faster production, railroads that aren't unlimited, removing corruption (which I never really had a problem with but I thought the amount was way to harsh)
But what have they done to the combat system. Supposedly it is to make it simpler. Simpler than what? If the the mentally dizzying concept of an attack rating and and defence rating is too much then maybe strategy games aren't for you. So now everything is combat neutral and we are back to bigger is better. In older versions artillery-type units were strong on offense and pathetic on defense (the way they are in reality). This was good. It meant you REALLY did have to use a "combined arms" approach. You needed to defend artillery with other strong defense units. The only unit that has this balance right in Civ4 is the machine gun.
And what is the go with bombardment. It only affects city defenses??!?!! Stripping a city of its production softens it up for invasion as does damaging the units inside. But artillery doesn't do this anymore. You can't even bombard units in the field. And artillery is so weak....apparently it is as good (rating=12) as a bunch of guys with 18th century grenades. But you can invade a city with a piece of artillery (which does not happen in reality) if you find a defender puny enough
(maybe a basic warrior) to attack. I thought they had the artillery system right in Civ3. Artillery was good there. (Although I thought capture shouldn't be guaranteed - maybe a 20-30% chance of capture).
Why can't you bombard units or terrain improvements? This makes no sense to me either. In earlier Civs, you had to protect resources from attack. The way it should be. Also aerial bombing of cities was a great way of undermining production in other nations if you weren't strong enough to invade or counter-attack or they were across the sea. You should also still be able to bombard
naval units that come in too close. That's why for the past three hundred years nations have built coastal defenses of one sort or another.
The other thing is that we still seem to have the "mysterious" AI combat advantage that has been debated forever. I had an AI archer attack a tank and win!!!! (must have got the arrow through the drivers view slit). Last night in another game I had three AI infantry (no artillery) attack a city of mine defended by 3 riflemen. They won. Now my riflemen (14) were defending a city of culture 100% and were fortified for several turns and were city garrison units. Thus they should have combat odds of 14+14+3+3=34 (depending on rounding). Therefore from a purely statistical POV the AI should lose 3 units for every 2 of mine (34:20 gives 1.5x chance of me winning). Alas it was not to be the AI killed all 3 of my units without issue. But all was not lost because apparently two of the AI infantry must have taken a nasty fall in the mad rush to enter my city as they were reduced to 19.2 and 18.7........ I have also had AI battleships attack my subs (I thought they were supposed to be invisible to all but other subs and destroyers).
It seems that the developers have catered to the "I want to invade everything but don't want the inconvenience of having to rebuild a city after capture; and I don't like it when the enemy bombards my resources" crowd...........the Civ4 combat system has taken a BIG BIG step backwards.
But what have they done to the combat system. Supposedly it is to make it simpler. Simpler than what? If the the mentally dizzying concept of an attack rating and and defence rating is too much then maybe strategy games aren't for you. So now everything is combat neutral and we are back to bigger is better. In older versions artillery-type units were strong on offense and pathetic on defense (the way they are in reality). This was good. It meant you REALLY did have to use a "combined arms" approach. You needed to defend artillery with other strong defense units. The only unit that has this balance right in Civ4 is the machine gun.
And what is the go with bombardment. It only affects city defenses??!?!! Stripping a city of its production softens it up for invasion as does damaging the units inside. But artillery doesn't do this anymore. You can't even bombard units in the field. And artillery is so weak....apparently it is as good (rating=12) as a bunch of guys with 18th century grenades. But you can invade a city with a piece of artillery (which does not happen in reality) if you find a defender puny enough
(maybe a basic warrior) to attack. I thought they had the artillery system right in Civ3. Artillery was good there. (Although I thought capture shouldn't be guaranteed - maybe a 20-30% chance of capture).
Why can't you bombard units or terrain improvements? This makes no sense to me either. In earlier Civs, you had to protect resources from attack. The way it should be. Also aerial bombing of cities was a great way of undermining production in other nations if you weren't strong enough to invade or counter-attack or they were across the sea. You should also still be able to bombard
naval units that come in too close. That's why for the past three hundred years nations have built coastal defenses of one sort or another.
The other thing is that we still seem to have the "mysterious" AI combat advantage that has been debated forever. I had an AI archer attack a tank and win!!!! (must have got the arrow through the drivers view slit). Last night in another game I had three AI infantry (no artillery) attack a city of mine defended by 3 riflemen. They won. Now my riflemen (14) were defending a city of culture 100% and were fortified for several turns and were city garrison units. Thus they should have combat odds of 14+14+3+3=34 (depending on rounding). Therefore from a purely statistical POV the AI should lose 3 units for every 2 of mine (34:20 gives 1.5x chance of me winning). Alas it was not to be the AI killed all 3 of my units without issue. But all was not lost because apparently two of the AI infantry must have taken a nasty fall in the mad rush to enter my city as they were reduced to 19.2 and 18.7........ I have also had AI battleships attack my subs (I thought they were supposed to be invisible to all but other subs and destroyers).
It seems that the developers have catered to the "I want to invade everything but don't want the inconvenience of having to rebuild a city after capture; and I don't like it when the enemy bombards my resources" crowd...........the Civ4 combat system has taken a BIG BIG step backwards.
Comment