Unit Power.

[Inverse Icarus]

According to the civ of the week stuff, a normal archer is 2-1-1, and a chariot is 1-1-2.

who remembers the mighty 4-1 chariot of civ 1? then the 3-1 chariot of civ 2. now 1-1.



how strong do units get Firaxis? are Armors (or tanks) still 10?

[splangy]

I was surpried by this as well, what the hell will a warior be ! but i guess if all units are toned down it counteracts itself and there is no real change, howwever i hope they get a major boost at gunpowder, that would be realistic no more chariot defeating musketeers, thats for sure

i just noticed somthing, the egyption chariot and the babylonian archer are EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!

[CIA_Operative]

the babylonian archer are EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!

Haha maybe the mig and the F15 might be 2/1/2 s also!!

[SK138]

It is a little odd that the chariot is so low on attack and defense, the warrior has go to be 1 attack 1 defense right? Maybe the chariot is further down on the tech tree so you learn it faster, but how much lower could it be?

[tniem]

It appears that they are going to eliminate phalanx defeating tank by simply making the math of it impossible. Smaller numbers for early units and larger numbers later make it even less mathematically possible for any damage to be inflicted upon modern units by early game units. Means upgrading is going to be even more essential throughout the game.

[Phutnote]

Yeah, the unit values are kinda different.

And it's a little odd that war chariots and babylonian archers are identical. Puzzling. I don't think the unique units are going to have a huge impact on the game. It's kinda too bad they aren't more distinctive.

attack value of 1 for a regular chariot's a real surprise. That's no better than a typical warrior. I guess they can hunt settlers/workers (0.0.1) or scouts (0.0.2) I remember not having much luck with units of strength 1 attacking units of strength 1. Basically forget it, the odds aren't with you if the enemy fortifies itself or is in any terrain other than open.

So far the values I've seen are:

settler/worker (0.0.1)

scouts (0.0.2) a default unit I think

chariots (1.1.2) egyptian (2.1.2)

archers (2.1.1) babylonian (2.1.2)

knights (4.3.2)

swordsmen (3.2.1)

french musketeers (3.4.1)

catapults (0(4).0.1)

I wonder what horsemen will be? 2.1.2 as well? That will make chariots and baby archers obsolete real fast (it's the tech right after the wheel chariot one).

Doesn't look like the Egyptians or bab's will have unique units around for long, and if they don't run into another civ real fast they aren't going to have a golden age.

Are there fractional values with these things? Perhaps having armies makes 1.1.2 chariots useful? Maybe that's why the unit strengths have been shifted.

Anyone know if firepower is still in, or if the ancient units have varying numbers of 'hit points'? No mention of it is made in the description of the units for the civ, so I'm guessing they're all the same for the same era.

Interested to see what values pop up in next weeks civ of the week.

Phutnote

[Inverse Icarus]

i dont think CSUs will go obsolete, or they shouldnt.

i should be able to build impis in 2000 ad

[SerapisIV]

Egyptian chariots versus riflemen? Ancient units, CSU or not, should be obsolete by the industrial age at the very latest.

[The diplomat]

Maybe the lower values are also meant to encourage stacked armies?
If you have standard chariots, archers and warriors at almost the same level then a 1 on 1 fight becomes more dicy. Especially if the defender is fortified, you are definitely not going to attack them with just one unit of similar att/def strength. So, we will want to have stack armies to try to overpower them.

[Grumbold]

I think you could be right. They are attempting to prevent 1 v 1 fights being practical at the start of the game so expansion is slowed even further because only armies can push outward and you will only have a very few of those. A novel way of stopping scouts exploring the biggest continent by 1000 B.C. Settlers may have to go a-settling with an armed guard rather than risking a few turns of being unprotected too.

Of course this is going to make barbarians a major pain in the butt if they prefer to pillage and force you to attack them. I still haven't figured out how a warband 'pillages' a road anyway. Since Roman roads survive in Britain today it looks like the Angles, Celts, Vikings, Danes, Saxons, Picts, Irish, Welsh, revolting peasants and other visitors must not have had the knack, whatever it is.

[Inverse Icarus]

all roads lead to rome my friend.

the romans were way ahead of their time for all feats of engineering.

maybe the romans should have the ability to build roads faster.

and egypt could irrigate faster.

and britian could mine faster.

and america could um. err... eat its young faster.

[General Ludd]

It's possible that different units have special properties, or that they work with each other within the stacked army.

[Urban Ranger]

It's silly that chariots has a 1 attack factor. It should have been a 3 or 4, but make them expensive to build. Maybe double the prior cost.

It seems like that now the expansionist special ability can be really awesome, if your scout can bring out a bunch of mercenaries from the goodie huts early

[JellyDonut]

By having very low attack/defence values for early units and very high ones for later units you can prevent the phalanx beats tank phenomenon. We get 1/1/2 units in the beginning but 15/17/5 units later (guesstimates, not real numbers).

[Urban Ranger]

The solution is not to reduce the power of the early units because their strengths still have to make sense when compared to each other. Clearly a chariot unit should be able to pulverise a warrior unit.

The solution is to increase the power of later units.

[TechWins]

It seems as if Firaxis is making some serious changes on the units abilities. The archer and chariot (csu) do have the exact same stats but that is because of their placement. With lowering the capabilities of the early ancient units it will make having units such as knights more important to build. In Civ2 many of the middle ages units were not important units to build. It seems as if these units will now inquire more importance. This will most likely apply with all ages, very important to upgrade (more less start building) ancient units (i.e. archer) to middle ages units (i.e. knight) then to renaissance units (i.e. musketeer) then to industrial units (i.e. riflemen) and then finally to modern units (i.e. armor). The overall importance of getting to the next level of units will be more important while being equally important for each age of units. This is just my perception on how Firaxis is dealing with the stats of units.

[Urban Ranger]

Perhaps.

They can still do this by adjusting the power of later units upwards. Say, make the attack of a knight to be 15, and a tank to be 50. Musketters can have a defense of, say, 20, rifleman, 40, mech inf, 60.

[FrostyBoy]

I disagree on the lower the points, the more chance a powerful unit will win, because 1. it would make better sense to raise the power of a more powerful unit, like a tank from 10 to 20, rather than make all the ancient units so low, because you can only go so far backwards. And 2. because I don't think that this probability system will be in place anymore, I think they will just simply programme it so that when a tank hits a phalanx, the phalanx WILL die, by command.


Also, I'm not worried that the points are so low, because none of us know the battle system yet, there is apparently something new and better.

[TechWins]

UR, your numbers are a tad bit excessive. Increasing modern units stats would be good, though. In fact I find an armor to be useless in Civ2. They can't even beat a partisan, when attacking regardless of the fact that the partisan is fortified (not in a fortress) this is ridiculous. Lowering some units stats (i.e. archer) and raising some untis stats (i.e. armor) will balance things out a lot more. I think that is what Firaxis is trying to achieve.

I don't think that this probability system will be in place anymore

The probality will always be there, with defence bonuses, health, etc... being involved. If these probablity modifiers were taken out the combat model would become worse than what it already is. So the probability has to stay.

I'm going to include two options on how units stats should have been handled and I want you to tell me which one you think is better. [Don't play so much into the small details, look at the whole picture to clearly understand my point.]

Att/Def/Move

Option 1)

Archers - 2/1/1
Phalanx - 1/2/1
Knights - 5/2/2
Swordsmen - 5/2/1
Musketeer - 5/4/1
Cannon - 10/1/1
Riflemen - 8/51
Marines - 10/6/1
Armor - 12/8/3
Howitzer - 14/2/2

Option 2)

Archers - 3/2/1
Phalanx - 1/2/1
Knights - 4/2/2
Swordsmen - 4/2/2
Musketeer - 3/3/1
Cannon - 8/1/1
Riflemen - 5/4/1
Marines - 8/5/1
Armor - 10/5/3
Howitzer - 12/2/2

[splangy]

Originally posted by UberKruX
all roads lead to rome my friend.

the romans were way ahead of their time for all feats of engineering.

maybe the romans should have the ability to build roads faster.

and egypt could irrigate faster.

and britian could mine faster.

and america could um. err... eat its young faster.

there industrial so there worker units work faster, so yeah, all roads will lead to rome

[Urban Ranger]

A good first draft can be this. Start off with the defense unit of the Ancient Ages. Double the defense for each succeeding epoch. Then adjust all other units against this base line. So

Ancient Age:

Warrior - 1/1/1
Phalanx - 1/2/1
Pikeman - 1/2/1 (2x against mounted units)


Middle Age:

Musketeers - 1/4/1


Industrial Age:

Rifleman - 1/8/1


Modern Age:

Mech Inf. - 1/16/1


Okay, that's not that excessive

The advantage of this is there's always an incentive to upgrade, and even a veteran unit of a prior epoch will be no better than a regular unit of this epoch.


TechWins,

The first one, I think, except why are the archers so wimpy?

[Ralf]

How strong a unit is is a question about correlation. As I said in that other chariot-thread; They most probably have adjusted the whole unit ADM-scale + defense-values for military city-improvements downwards in order to to avoid inflationary high numbers. Or at least partly for that reason.

The important thing is if the correlation between above factors is reasonably OK - and Im sure they are, at large. If not, you can always edit the Rules.txt files yourself.

I admit though, that building a standard 1-1-2 chariot (probably at least 50-100% more expensive than building a 1-1-1 warrior) - then only get a rather slim chance of beating 1 lousy warrior-unit - not to mention 2 in a row (or combined), IS somewhat hard-to-swallow. I wonder if I ever will produce any.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I think you could be right. They are attempting to prevent 1 v 1 fights being practical at the start of the game so expansion is slowed even further because only armies can push outward and you will only have a very few of those.

Good point. Those Civ-2 players who brags about conquering the world before 1 AD, will have to work much harder to achieve anything near that. If its possible at all. Personally, I have never understand the fun of world-conquerings as fast as possible - it seems to be a rather boring one-dimensional way to play the Civ-2 game.

[TechWins]

The first one, I think, except why are the archers so wimpy?

Then you chose the Civ3 option, that is if what I perceive is correct. The other option is the Civ2 option. Having units stats stretched out into a farther range will significantly improve things, IMO.

The reason for the stats of the archer being so slow is because that's what Firaxis designated their stats as.

Ralf, I agree that there shouldn't be too much inflation in the stats of certain units but there has to be more seperation in the range of stats between each age of units. Which option did you like more, 1 or 2?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by TechWins
Ralf, I agree that there shouldn't be too much inflation in the stats of certain units but there has to be more seperation in the range of stats between each age of units. Which option did you like more, 1 or 2?

Well, I never had any BIG problems with the Civ-2 stats. But early city- & world-conquerings was in fact too easy in that game. So I generally like the move towards somewhat weaker unit attack-values, together with unchanged/ a tad stronger defence-values - but only so and so much.

The only way I can except 1-1-2 chariots is if the added speed-advantage somehow contributes to the overal attack-value as well, although it doesnt show up in above basic attack-value. Remember though that there are additional unit-stat factors, other then just attack/defence/move. If "speed over the battle-field" (not to be mixed up with "move" = marching speed), actually adds up to the overal attack-value, then perhaps those standard chariots isnt that weak, after all.

Before, debating any further, we should ask ourself how many unit-stat factors they have added, besides attack/defence/move. Compare with Civ-2, SMAC (and CTP-1/2 for that matter). What is likely? Any suggestions?

[Tventano]

a few chariots can kill a few warriors without being killed themselves, because chariots have move two and just as in SMAC they can attack and halfway retreat. Attack with the next one and kill the warrior. So even against spearman chariots will be fairly useful as long you have couple of them.

[Urban Ranger]

Ralf,

I reckon they will have at least firepower and hitpoints just like Civ 2. Beyond that it's anybody's guess. Now if mounted units have the special ability of "overrun" (2x attack strength) against units that don't have "defense against charging attacks," and if chariots count as mounted units, they get a little better. Not by much, though.

I can't imagine that a chariot unit can't run over a warrior unit (without defense modifiers) without slowing down much.

[Inverse Icarus]

what really ticks me off is that the Archer and Chariot are the same.

yes, i know it's been said before, but i want my turn to whine.

anyway, i would rather the archer have an extra defense point, making it 2-2-1.

"the babylonians knew a thing about siege tactics and how to defend".

well defending means an extra movement point now i see.

EDIT: i guess it does, cause cats have ranged attack now

[TechWins]

I reckon they will have at least firepower and hitpoints just like Civ 2.

That is what you would think but it seems as if it won't be that way. Go to this thread and read up on a few of my posts and Lockstep's posts to get further details. I'll post a few key quotes.

"The morale levels seem to have different numbers of hitpoints: 3 for the normal level, 4 for veteran and probably 5 for elite. Look at this (older) screenshot (http://www.civfanatics.com/cgi-bin/.../19-19-2225.jpg)" Lockstep

"The 3 hit points for a normal unit is probably for the ancient and unarmed units. While a normal, firearms unit would get 4 hit points. A normal, steel armor unit would get 5 hit points. A normal battleship might receive 6 hit points. I sure hope it is this way." TechWins

"TechWins: Your theory about the dots (ancient vs. firearms units) is what I thought at first, too. But look again at the older screenshot. First, at the German city of Stuttgart, then, to the lower right of the screenshot. This is definitly the same sort of unit, but the German unit has four and the Egyptian unit just three dots. Moreover, in the city of Memphis there is a phalanx with four dots." Lockstep

Thought I would fill you in on that discovery. If it is even true.

Somewhere I read before that they were trying to get away from the Civ2 combat system and leaning more towards the Civ1 combat system but I could be wrong.

[Odin]

About the chariot, I think its firepower will be 2 so it can kill early units wih only 1 or 2 defensive points. If that be the case the Egyptian UU will be a force to be reckoned with until gunpowder.