Attack and defence vs. strength

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Axxaer
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).

I find I build far more kinds of units than I have before. In the ancient age alone there are reasons for Axemen, Spearmen, Horse Archers, Archers, and Swordsmen. Far more troops than a previous civ game would encourage.

As ages progress this remains the same. Crossbowmen and Longbowmen are similar, but have different uses. Knights are powerful, but that just encourages offensive pikemen to attack enemy knights. Pikemen mean that you'll definitely want some macemen to protect your knights from enemy Pikes. Macemen are best countered by other Macemen or Knights. Musketmen arrive at the tail end of this, but they do not supplant any of the previous units, rather they are just a supplement.

In the modern age there are reasons to build fighters, bombers, tanks, mechanical infantry, SAM infantry, ships of all types (destroyers are great to defend your ships against fighter attacks), and artillery. You might also want Marines for sea invasions.

Before you'd always do one type of defender, because only one defender would be best. You'd do artillery, which we do in Civ IV anyhow, and you'd also make one, or at most two, attacking units (this is for land). In Civ IV you have a much bigger reason to expand your troop portfolio, as this better enables you to defend your units and cities both defensively and offensively.

-Drachasor

[Urban Ranger]

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

Then again there are many units where a single strength representation doesn't make sense. For example, catapults can't fight at all in melee combat, but they are fearsome in their specialised role.

Originally posted by Drachasor
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.

An infantry unit fights much better in close combat, particularly when they are entrenched.

Originally posted by Drachasor
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.

Not when the other side is up and close.

Originally posted by Drachasor
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).

I think the current system is a bit silly. In fact, I have always thought that the Civ combat system is, ahem, unrealistic. The range in strength is just too narrow. The concept of a unit is relatively modern, esp one with clearly defined internal structure and numbers. The Roman Cohorts seem to be a partial exception.

Units with separate attack, defense, indirect fire/bombard, armour/absorption and HP are much better. The first two factors cover melee combat. The third one is for things such as catapults, cannons and artillery units. The forth one is for tanks, ships, and other units that can aborb damage. If you want to be more precise add a "close combat" factor, which is used in certain circumstances, e.g. an infantry unit in forest or hill.

[LordShiva]

UR

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Then again there are many units where a single strength representation doesn't make sense. For example, catapults can't fight at all in melee combat, but they are fearsome in their specialised role.

That could be handled sufficiently by a return to the "capture" convention of Civ 3. I'd note two things however. First that combat is not necessarily melee combat at all. Secondly, later artillery could do very well in a fight, perhaps especially against charging troops.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
An infantry unit fights much better in close combat, particularly when they are entrenched.

Close, perhaps, relative to artillery and planes. 1000+ meters is far from close in the ancient era. I'll grant you that the current system doesn't represent range at all, but neither does the A/D system. If anything the current system does better since it at least acknowledges that with the vast field and distances on the map, "attacking" and "defending" is almost an arbitrary turn (there is more than enough room in a square for a defender to turn a "defense" into an attack).

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not when the other side is up and close.

Last time I checked though, they have to get there first. Melee units don't just appear out of nowhere in front of archers. They have to go through the hail of arrows before they reach their target. I would say once again that Bowmen in previous games were given horrible defense values, which makes no sense since they can utilize fortifications much more effectively than melee units.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I think the current system is a bit silly. In fact, I have always thought that the Civ combat system is, ahem, unrealistic. The range in strength is just too narrow. The concept of a unit is relatively modern, esp one with clearly defined internal structure and numbers. The Roman Cohorts seem to be a partial exception.

The current system is certainly unrealistic. I also agree that all Civ systems have been unrealistic. Perhaps CtP had the best system of this genre -- I am sure there will eventually be a number of solutions to this shortcoming. However, I do think that the current system is an improvement from the old. I don't think that the numbers are as clearly defined as you think. Not beyond the minimum the game has to account for, since it must deal in discrete numbers at some point -- and I think being able to split your warrior into 1000 different 1-man units, or combining the warrior with other such units would be needlessly complicated. The existence of units just has to be accepted, and for practical purposes the innacurracy is not bad.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Units with separate attack, defense, indirect fire/bombard, armour/absorption and HP are much better. The first two factors cover melee combat. The third one is for things such as catapults, cannons and artillery units. The forth one is for tanks, ships, and other units that can aborb damage. If you want to be more precise add a "close combat" factor, which is used in certain circumstances, e.g. an infantry unit in forest or hill.

Now, units with seperate attack and defense values, in a general sense, might well be better than the current system. That only works, however, if wether "attacking" or "defending" both values are used, one to resist damage and the other to deal it. That isn't how Civ 3 and previous system worked, however. There are many more units that do not fit into the A/D-only-use-one-value-at-a-time system than those that do not fit into the current system.

Again I would say that combat is far, far more than melee combat, and heck, most of the units in the game aren't melee. A/D does very little for ranged units, and it assumes an odd lack of mobility in all units that are not moving out of their huge, huge square of land. In realistic terms a Knight unit attacking another Knight unit on open land should not have a massive advantage. That other unit can maneuver and attack just as effectively as the "attacker".


I do miss bombardment, but it isn't too bad that now one does have to worry about more about replacing their artillery. However, I'd sooner have someone mod the game so that it made combat more realistic, rather than going back to the *at least* equally unrealistic A/D system. Let's have a mod that has units form armies together like CtP. I bet eventually we'll even be able to cook up a tactical interface at least akin to Heroes of Might and Magic or MOOI/II/III.

Rather than looking behind and trying to go back to the past, let's instead start walking towards the future.

-Drachasor

[Last Conformist]

Bombardment in CivIII may have made more intuitive sense, but it was broken.

Catapults should realistically only be used against fortifications. To increase realism, they should lose the ability to attack and defense at all.

[Dis]

Bring back Firepower!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(as in Civ2)

*runs away*

[Krill]

Keep the promos, but bring back Attack and Defence instead of defence...And IMO realism can go hang so long as gameplay is good.

[Handel]

The best results for now are from the Civ2 combat system. I don't know why this was removed and was replaced by combat usung the chance.

[Dis]

seriously, civ4 system is the best. Although I still have gripes about the strength of post musketmen units. I understand musektmen weren't very tough, as they only had single shot guns. But once we move into rifleman, it's a pain seeing them lose against pikeman and the like. But I think their strengths can be modded easily enough. The question is finding the right balance between bombers, artillary and rifleman after that.

It's nice being able to actually attack something with my spearman.

[Enigma_Nova]

Why would a Rifle lose to a Spearman, anyway? Rifles don't count as mounted.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Handel
The best results for now are from the Civ2 combat system. I don't know why this was removed and was replaced by combat usung the chance.

[vee4473]

I prefer the a/d values. I can get into the new system, but I can't really stand that a modern unit is reduced to the level of a knight, per se, if wounded enough.

I liked it when a wounded modern armor still had the power to take out a couple more units before being killed.

That isn't true anymore. Now you have to sit around and heal or else lose any modern unit benefit you had. Wounded or not, a stronger attack should always be given to modern units.

Please don't cite realism or any such non-sense to defend how a wounded tank is vulnerable. If the gun can fire, it is dangerous. Realism should never be used to defend a civ feature either being present or absent.

As mentioned before, gameplay trumps realism.

[vee4473]

Oh, and I kinda suspect that the popularity of this new system is based on players who may have gotten crushed by modern armies in previous games, and who now have a fighting chance.

This is one argument in favor of the system. To keep weaker players in the game longer. And being one who has often found himself on the bootheel of a rival civ's modern army, I can appreciate this!!

But, the jury is still out on this one for me.