Let's talk about the changes to combat

[Shark2346]

I think one thing that hasn't been discussed on the boards is combat. We all know Diplomacy was broken but I don't think any of us realized how beat up combat was until they decided to change it.

Things I have heard about combat rework:

-Each unit will now have 100HP as opposed to 10HP
-Artillery-like units will now be essential for taking cities that have defenses
-Artillery-like and ranged units will be treated differently (i.e. artillery-like will now have an inherent bonus against cities)

I think obviously 100HP changes combat entirely and allows for militarys to be smaller overall. Warfare will be less about sheer numbers and more about the terrain, tactics, strategies and type of units deployed on the battlefield. Obviously having a giant military is not a problem though.

To me flanking, pillaging and great generals (and all other bonuses) all become extremely relevant under this new 100HP system.

[SlickSlicer]

I'll let you know if I like it once I play around with it a little bit. I'm not sure I like that artillery units are more essential for taking cities or that cities were buffed in defensive strength. I liked that aggressors were on a more even playing field with defenders before.

[Off_pace]

On the surface I love the change to unit Hit Points, now instead of having a random barbarian archer do 10% damage to my Uber Battleship, we get something more realistic. It feels now that upgrading units and promotions will have an even bigger importance and I like that.

[Shark2346]

I would think the city defense buff was needed because of the extra combat bonuses one can get from religion. Some religious bonuses include +20% in enemy territory. I believe that if the units have 100HP and the cities stayed the same that would become unbalanced so it had to be changed.

Artillery I agree with though... I don't know that it is essential for taking cities in the modern era but catapults and cannons were an essential part of siege warfare that really only ended after the Germans proved static defense doctrine was pointless.

Maybe there should be a switch of focus once tanks are invented... Static defense (i.e. fortresses, city walls) is important until modern era units, then the focus can switch to the elastic defense doctrine where units are more important for defense (i.e. anti tank, anti air, anti personnel). This idea might be a stretch for a Civ game, but it is something to think about at the very least.

[SlickSlicer]

Artillery I agree with though... I don't know that it is essential for taking cities in the modern era but catapults and cannons were an essential part of siege warfare that really only ended after the Germans proved static defense doctrine was pointless.

I don't care about historical accuracy, though. I am interested from a purely gameplay perspective. I'll have to play it to see whether I like these changes or not. I believe it is important not to give defenders too great an advantage because they already have an advantage anyways due to superior movement within their own territory and city defense.

[Shark2346]

Well like I said Great General bonuses will be more effective now and the addition of religious bonuses will add to that. So I think it was necessary to increase city defense in order to maintain the balance. I think it will work out nicely but I see your point about a possible overwhelming advantage to an aggressor if they do not have the bonuses.

But then again if you aren't gearing your civilization towards domination then why be an aggressor?

[crustbucket]

We can't forget about how spies will change combat as well. Perhaps they can decrease the city defense or sabotage walls/castles etc. for a turn or so decreasing the cities defense, not to mention any tile razing they could possibly do.

[VicRatlhead51]

I would think the city defense buff was needed because of the extra combat bonuses one can get from religion. Some religious bonuses include +20% in enemy territory. I believe that if the units have 100HP and the cities stayed the same that would become unbalanced so it had to be changed.

Artillery I agree with though... I don't know that it is essential for taking cities in the modern era but catapults and cannons were an essential part of siege warfare that really only ended after the Germans proved static defense doctrine was pointless.

Maybe there should be a switch of focus once tanks are invented... Static defense (i.e. fortresses, city walls) is important until modern era units, then the focus can switch to the elastic defense doctrine where units are more important for defense (i.e. anti tank, anti air, anti personnel). This idea might be a stretch for a Civ game, but it is something to think about at the very least.

They kind of did this back in 4 when the discovery of gunpowder made walls and castles irrelevant but I didn't really like it from a gameplay perspective. It just meant cities got easier to take while the units got stronger. It just made it too easy for civs to get steamrolled.

Actually the fact that cities are getting harder to take is why I'm excited about the Huns. They'll essentially be the only civ with a siege unit before the discovery of iron. Sure their UA is kind of weak but I think its making up for that early blitz ability.

[Shark2346]

They kind of did this back in 4 when the discovery of gunpowder made walls and castles irrelevant but I didn't really like it from a gameplay perspective. It just meant cities got easier to take while the units got stronger. It just made it too easy for civs to get steamrolled.

Actually the fact that cities are getting harder to take is why I'm excited about the Huns. They'll essentially be the only civ with a siege unit before the discovery of iron. Sure their UA is kind of weak but I think its making up for that early blitz ability.

Yeah but the military play of 4 was different than this. It could work in Civ5 because of the ability to create lines of defense. Doesn't really matter though. I am not too concerned about having stronger cities.

[VicRatlhead51]

Eh, it just seems counterintuitive to reduce defense while increasing offense. You'd need larger military to defend and small empires going for cultural victories would be at even more of a disadvantage than they already are. It just doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective.

With the longer battles due to higher defense and the fact that they say units that could kill eachother in two rounds are going to take four to fight it out now I'm kind of wondering how long dom games are going to take now. Since the AI is supposed to be a little smarter and the units will last longer I see a lot of marathon and epic games in the future. Marathon the way it is right now is pretty easy since all it takes is to wipe out your enemy's army once then steamroll him.

[SlickSlicer]

Eh, it just seems counterintuitive to reduce defense while increasing offense. You'd need larger military to defend and small empires going for cultural victories would be at even more of a disadvantage than they already are. It just doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective.

With the longer battles due to higher defense and the fact that they say units that could kill eachother in two rounds are going to take four to fight it out now I'm kind of wondering how long dom games are going to take now. Since the AI is supposed to be a little smarter and the units will last longer I see a lot of marathon and epic games in the future. Marathon the way it is right now is pretty easy since all it takes is to wipe out your enemy's army once then steamroll him.

If you're talking about multiplayer, the vast majority prefer quick. singleplayer I dunno.

[VicRatlhead51]

Yeah I meant single player. Even with combat moving at the pace it does now I feel like I have to stop to upgrade troops too often and that I don't get to enjoy using UUs as much as Id like on standard. Slow it down too much and wars will encompass multiple eras. As far as multiplayer goes I wouldn't imagine trying to get people to play anything longer than standard. Quick would even be preferrable. Since troops don't move or heal any faster on faster speeds I just wonder if domination games will even be feasable on a standard map.

[SlickSlicer]

The main problem I see with game speed is that it greatly affects the balance of civilizations. Slower game speeds benefit those with earlier UUs whereas faster ones could benefit ones with later ones.

[crustbucket]

Yeah, with marathon speeds, the Huns would dominate a Pangea styled map, as they would be the only ones with access to a siege unit for quite a while, while on quick speeds on say Continents, their UU may get overlooked depending on whether there are any Civs near them and the resources they have. From personal experience I hardly build spearmen opting instead for swordsmen/pikemen later, unless of course I have no iron or am playing as Greece, especially on quick settings where I can acquire swordsmen a few turns after getting the tech for spearmen.

[twersx]

I don't care about historical accuracy, though. I am interested from a purely gameplay perspective. I'll have to play it to see whether I like these changes or not. I believe it is important not to give defenders too great an advantage because they already have an advantage anyways due to superior movement within their own territory and city defense.

I think that Early siege not requiring Iron will make this a good choice.
I assume a tank will be able to one shot a primitive unit, even if it takes 1 damage? and have cities been boosted to 200 or are they still at 20? GG could provide extra combat bonuses during a siege, representing the organisation necessary for a successful siege.

Thinking about it, Sieges were avoided until Medieval times. Most classical wars were decided on the battlefield; Zama, Salamis, Marathon, Alesia etc. Tyre, one of the most famous sieges of Classical times, was completed in the presence of Alexander (Great General). Even in Medieval times, many wars were decided on the battlefield. So I think Siege weapons should become much more powerful as tech advances. Cannons should be a huge improvement on Trebuchets.

The main problem I see with game speed is that it greatly affects the balance of civilizations. Slower game speeds benefit those with earlier UUs whereas faster ones could benefit ones with later ones.

Faster speeds make UUs almost useless. If I'm playing on quick, then I'll usually just beeline for Mech Inf. Quicker speeds actually make UBs much more important. I play on Epic but even then, I have to delay a certain tech until the alst possible moment because it'll make my UU obsolete, thus can't build it anymore. this is especially bad for anyone with unique Muskets as Riflemen are only two techs ahead, and most U Muskets have terrific traits. I really wish there was a speed between Epic and Marathon

[VicRatlhead51]

I think that Early siege not requiring Iron will make this a good choice.
I assume a tank will be able to one shot a primitive unit, even if it takes 1 damage? and have cities been boosted to 200 or are they still at 20? GG could provide extra combat bonuses during a siege, representing the organisation necessary for a successful siege.

Thinking about it, Sieges were avoided until Medieval times. Most classical wars were decided on the battlefield; Zama, Salamis, Marathon, Alesia etc. Tyre, one of the most famous sieges of Classical times, was completed in the presence of Alexander (Great General). Even in Medieval times, many wars were decided on the battlefield. So I think Siege weapons should become much more powerful as tech advances. Cannons should be a huge improvement on Trebuchets.





Faster speeds make UUs almost useless. If I'm playing on quick, then I'll usually just beeline for Mech Inf. Quicker speeds actually make UBs much more important. I play on Epic but even then, I have to delay a certain tech until the alst possible moment because it'll make my UU obsolete, thus can't build it anymore. this is especially bad for anyone with unique Muskets as Riflemen are only two techs ahead, and most U Muskets have terrific traits. I really wish there was a speed between Epic and Marathon

Exactly! It drives me crazy every time I play Persia that their UU is totally crap since I usually make a beeline for civil service, so I can get a head start on Chichen Itza. Usually this means I really only get to build a few immortals. I like playing epic or marathon so I can enjoy UUs a little more. I just don't like the fact that this makes the game easier because the AI cant keep their units alive. Ive been trying out some mods that rebalance marathon speed but I haven't found one I like yet. If production is too fast your economy cant keep up with maintenance costs. Maybe something with reduced production costs for units but still high building costs might provide a nice medium. The only kind of game I really like on quick speeds is a more peaceful one. Especially culture games. Faster speeds might mean more troops but the further the troops have to travel the more likely they'll be obsolete when they get there. This really favors the defenders.