Attack and defence vs. strength

[skodkim]

Am I the only one who feels that the introduction of a "Strength" rating instead of a
seperate "Defence" and "Attack" rating as in previous CIv versions is a bit of a set back?

I mean, saying that a chariot unit is as good at defending as it is at attacking is
just a bit simplified. Anyway, I feel it means that it removed some of the units special
forces and weaknesses: Before you'd attack with four knights and defend with pikemen. I know
some of this is outbalanced by the intruduction of special skills and promotions, which I
on the other hand find is a great idea. Maybe you could combine them? Why not have specific
ratings for defence and attack combined with skills and promotions?

What do you think?

Skodkim

[baboon]

A lot of 'attacking' style units like knights aren't very good at defending because they aren't receiving defensive bonuses. So, while it's different, I don't think it's worse and actually I like it better than Civ3. In Civ 3 I would just only build knights and cavalry, while at this game I need a lot more different units.

Well, I voted the Civ4 option

[Urban Ranger]

I guess they want to simplify things a bit.

You could give units lots of attributes.

[Last Conformist]

I always thought the A/D system of earlier civs made limited sense, so I much like the shift to a unitary strength.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I would prefer the A/D system, if it weren't for promotions. I think the promotion system more than makes up for the loss of seperate attack and defense. That being said, I don't really think it is less complex or less confusing than the old system...just more flexible.

[Adagio]

I like the new strength

[ghen]

I prefer the new strength/hp setup. A sword or a bullet has the same power on attack and defense, its all in how you use it that makes the difference.

[Freddz]

Civ 4 style. Add more interesting promotions, more interesting units in the expansions.

[LordShiva]

Strength

[Drachasor]

Strength works so much better. There are so many units that simply didn't make sense in the A/D system:

1. Spearmen...why can't they attack again? The Phalanx was the foundation of the Greek military and they didn't just sit there and wait for people to come at them.

2. Legions/random attacking infantry unit: Why can't they defend themselves on normal ground just as well as they could attack? It isn't like they'd just sit there. The squares are huge, giving even a defensive force plenty of room to maneuver.

3. Bowmen: Why can't they defend worth a darn? They can hit oncoming opponents well before the enemy can hit them. Furthermore they can make much better use of cover than any melee unit.

And there are others.

Frankly the current system makes much more sense, and is more easily modifiable to work even better. It gets rid of the silliness of units that can only defend and can't attack worth squat (such units don't really exist as any "defensive" capability can be used to push an attack).

-Drachasor

[Tattila the Hun]

I'd like to see something similar to the Panzer General unit strengths.

[Nik]

Drachasor seems to have hit the right arguments.

At first I thought wtf! But when I began playing the game, I could see a lot more sense to CIV4 strength, although it is not very well covered in the manual.

Before CIV 4: 1 kind unit to attack, 1 kind of unit to defend.

CIV 4: Combined arms. Now it is not very wise to have 100 knights attack a city. They will surely loose... But with knights, pikemen, catapults, archers etc. you can actually have a medieval combined army! It is incredebel.

A/D sucks when you have played CIV 4. Of course it could be combined with a kind of firepower, but as is it, is great!!!

[Bogdanovist]

A/D made no sense as explained by several people already. The new system is more intuitive, fun and for what it's worth more 'accurate'. Archers now defend cities better, because archers are more powerfull when they have cover. Knights do not get the defensive bonus's of a city, since they must do their fighting in the open, whether it be in a sally or a counter charge in the city streets once the gates are busted open. The strength + abilities system better refelects the ability of different troop types in different situations and against different opponents.

In the A/D system troops out in the country side with no cover at all (no woods or hills) were still strangely hampered by this klunky system. So knights were vulnerable to 'being attacked'. In fact the stregth + abilities system even helps to break down the abstraction created by turned based combat. I.e. in the past if two opponent s both had knights, the winner would be the 'attacker', sothe game is to make your opponent come into your attack range without being able to reach you, so that you get the attacking advantage. This is horribly unrealistic in the time and spatial scales of Civ. WIth this new system, two kinghts meeting in the open have the same odds of winning, regardless of who attacks, which is much more realistic considering two groups of kinghts will always charge each other, rather than one 'attacking' and the other standing still. Thus Civ4 combat is more realistic, more intuative, less finicky and much more fun!

[Kc7mxo]

Where is the I WANT CIV2 STYLE option?

[Axxaer]

Originally posted by baboon
A lot of 'attacking' style units like knights aren't very good at defending because they aren't receiving defensive bonuses. So, while it's different, I don't think it's worse and actually I like it better than Civ3. In Civ 3 I would just only build knights and cavalry, while at this game I need a lot more different units.

Well, I voted the Civ4 option

I found that with separate attack and defence ratings I would tend to build more different military units, as opposed to now just building the one with the best strength (and occasionally some good movement ones).

For example with separate attack and defence, it made sense to fortify your cities with units with high defence, with little care for their attack. When attack sparsely defended cities, it made sense to use high attack only because they would rarely leave their fortifications. When attacking distant nations it made sense to take both into consideration as you were going to attack, but also likely to be attacked on the way.

This said, I think that the promotions system adds much much more depth to the game, encouraging players to value their experienced units and not just throw them away for new ones.

Anyhow, I voted for the combination because I think that the base attack/defence system was better, although would be the best if use with the promotions too.