WTF: no firepower?

[izmircali]

From the review units only have attack, defense, and hit points (which are standardized). Granted it looks like units will also have special abilities (the editor screenshot had a tab) so I hope that helps. Also combat is done in rounds instead of to the death.

But I don't see why firepower was eliminated, i mean a tank obviously has more firepower than a phalanx. Same goes with diffent hit points. Perhaps they combined firepower (since it appeared to be a multiplier to attack or defense) into the two stats but I have my doubts on this new combat system.

Anyone else know better? did i read this preview wrong?

[Dutch]

I wonder about the same thing. Perhaps this has something to do with the new capabilities of bombardment, etc.? I mean, in Civ I a battleship could attack a phalanx and be destroyed by it. In Civ II, this was almost impossible, although the phalanx could damage the battleship slightly. In Civ III (and also in real life), the battleship will (I think) be able to bombard and the destroy the phalanx from a distance, without the phalanx being able to inflict damage at all.

So, when it comes to ground units, perhaps there is a solution of this kind that will replace firepower.

[Stuie]

They have increased Attack and Defense power of many units to accomodate for the loss of "firepower". Examples:

Unit Attack.Defense

Spearman 1.2
Swordmen 3.2
Musketman 3.3
Cavalry 6.3
Tank 16.10
Modern Tank 24.14

So it should all work out.

[splangy]

actually, all units have a firepower of 1, so the chance of a phalanx beating a battleship is REALLY low, much lower than in civ1, and about the same (maybe larger, but not much) in civ2...

[Dutch]

Right. Sounds acceptable. Can't quite lose the idea that the firepower system of Civ II was more advanced, though.

[campmajor!]

I disagree. If you take the example of that battleship versus phalanx, then IMO it is unrealistic that the battleship is damaged by that phalanx!

So by replacing firepower by a bombardment possibility, they made it more realistic and therefore a more advanced system.

[Dutch]

I agree to that!

My example perfectly shows how Civilization has evolved through the ages.

I merely think that when it comes to plain ground combat (phalanx versus armor, etc.), the firepower system seemed to have a technological edge. But, of course, it may be rendered obsolete by the new Combat Engine advance.

[Jason Beaudoin]

I just hope that a Musketman doesn't loose to a Phalax very often. I mean, the technologies are totally different, and the Musketman are far superior.

[Zanzin]

People, if it was Activision making this game, a phalanx probably would beat a battleship. But, it is Firaxas making the game, they "appear" to have their heads screwed on, so I'm sure that they've got everything worked out - i.e. no phalanx victorys over battlships!!

A musketeer vs a swordsman might be closer though....who knows

[dainbramaged13]

Jason, thats one thing Im not so sure about... all the stats for early units seem very low to me.. they dont strt getting big enough until about industrial age.

[albiedamned]

I suspect that removing firepower was part of the simplification effort we've read about. Just glancing at the attack and defense strength is all you need to know now. And of course you have to consider the morale (regular/veteran/elite).

As for a 3/3 musketeer taking on a (presumably) 1/2 phalanx, the musketeer should win but will take some damage, given equal morale. I don't think this is unrealistic. Musketeers do have firearms, but the primitive gunpowder weapons were slow to load and unreliable, so it's not inconceivable that a hand-to-hand combat unit like the phalanx could get in and do some damage.

[Jason Beaudoin]

Well, regardless of what can beat what... I wouldn't want to see an army of spear throwers beating up on an army of riflemen. That isn't only inaccurate, but it's agrivating and not very much fun. You would expect that a civilization that is vastly more advanced than another, would easily take out a bunch of rock throwers.

What is the difference between a rifleman and a phalanx, other than their attack, defence ratings? Is there anything that distinguishes these units appart other than those ratings? Is there anything that would almost certainly guarantee that the rifleman would win?

[Dutch]

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin

What is the difference between a rifleman and a phalanx, other than their attack, defence ratings? Is there anything that distinguishes these units appart other than those ratings? Is there anything that would almost certainly guarantee that the rifleman would win?

I join in the question choir. Technically, if you have 20 phalanx fighting 1 rifleman, a few phalanx might prevail and kill off the rifleman. Perhaps this could happen in real life, though, if the rifleman ran out of ammo.

[Jason Beaudoin]

I shouldn't put much faith in Gamespots preview because I'm noticing a ton of errors in this so called "preview". They're saying that if a unit with an attack factor of 9 attacks a unit with a defence fact of 1, it has a 90% chance of victory.

Really? So if a tank takes on a warrior, their is a 10% chance that it will be killed? That better not be true! The warrior should have about 0.01% chance of not being crushed under the tanks tracks!!!

Ok... I really need Firaxis to come in here to save us from this delema!

[ChrisShaffer]

It's not a 90% chance of winning the entire battle, it's a 90% chance of winning each round of the battle. The warrrior would need to win three rounds before the tank won three rounds - highly unlikely. Also, the tank has a higher movement rate, and thus can break off the combat when injured and retreat to fight another day -- should luck be against it.