Technological Superiority Doesn't Matter in War

[TCO]

Originally posted by SlowThinker


The judge is coming...

On Civ2 deity there is no combat advantage for the AI (except barbs).

2 years of jail for Grim Legacy.

WAHOOO!!!!

THE CROWD REJOICES!!!


*GP high fives the other real men of combat and does a "victory lap" around the quivering whiner group*

[TCO]

Originally posted by F18fett
A few points:

1. To those that say spearmen are actually guerillas with modern weapons a la the Northern Alliance, that could work except for one thing. The Aztecs I am playing against don't even have gunpowder. How would they be able to have these sort of weapons without having any knowledge of gunpowder, or any prerequisite knowledge?

2. What is the point of researching new units if they lose to old ones? The AI is supposed to be challenging, so should it now be able to keep up with me in technology? In Civ 2, the civs that only had pikemen and knights were trampled by other civs with cavalry and artillery. It's just survival of the fittest. To fix the problem of there only being 3 AI and a human at the end of the game, they should've made it so that the AI can keep up with the human a little better. An AI that has crappy units shouldn't win against my modern army.

3. I have nothing against a weak unit winning because of terrain modifiers though. I lost a cavalry attacking knights in the jungle and I didn't mind. It makes sense that the knights knew the terrain and could've slaughtered my cavalry. What doesn't make sense is that my fortified cavalry defending a town were somehow slaughtered by longbowmen. As for the idea of a powder explosion, that should be considered a "random combat event" and specifically told to the player. It should have a higher chance of occuring the further away you get, but shouldn't be above 35-40% chance of occuring.

4. Nobody has told me how the riflemen defending a size 12 city managed to die to an attacking knight.

Also, does anyone have any ideas on what other paths I could use to capture the city? Combat and trying to buy the city haven't worked.

-even in civ2, it was considered poor strategy to use cavalry as defenders.

-The modern units still have an edge over the older ones, it's just a lesser edge.

-There's no need for some in-game simulation of gunpowder exchange. Think of it as a turn lasting for at least a year and the units being armys. In the course of their combat some fo the old guys get a few guns from swiping them. It's at least as realistic as phalanxes marching around in the modern era...

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by calefein
Can we for a moment consider what would happen if your solution to the "problem" was
implemented and firepower was brought back from the dead. This would place a point
where a tech advance would put you vastly superior to everyone else.
This would be more realistic, but would it make for a more fun game? I think not. Players
would scramble up the tech tree to get to gunpowder, and afterwards they could slack of
tech wise because of the significant bonus of their new troops over their counterparts.
If the AI got gunpowder before you, you would try to get it at all costs knowing that your
troops had little chance of holding up. You would throw as much money as needed to
either bribe or steal it out of them. I hope I’m not wasting my breath here and you can at
least see where I'm coming from.

You have precisely described the fatal combat flaw of Sid M.'s Alpha Centauri only it's not a weapon tech it's a tech that allows for a choper unit chassis that moves 10 and can attacks as many times in a turn as it has moves. If you get this a few techs ahead of a nearby opponent you can effectively build a moderate force of them a clean you opponent out before he gets the tech or even has time to build his own choppers. I don't think it would be much different if tanks were as powerful as some here would like them to be. All in all it means poor gameplay.

Given that Firaxis made SMAC, and Firaxis makes CIV3, I have to give them credit for not making the same mistake twice.

[Monoriu]

"This solution sounds more the end game of a Real-Time Strategy game.

Build a bunch of units and throw them at the computer until it dies. Rinse and repeat. Hey, isn't that taboo among this crowd?

If your strategy is to bombard cities until every defending unit is drooling teeth, a tech advantage would be moot. You could capture such cities with inferior equipment as long as the defenders only had one hit point (Under the current system.) No wonder you haven't been having any problems.

Shouldn't I be able to sweep in against a weak foe and capture the city relatively intact, and save the artillery for cities belonging to my equals and superiors? Why do I need to go all out against such a primitive force? What if that big force is needed elsewhere, but at the same time I need to quickly and easily impress some extra cities into my fold, or deal with a intellectual midget of a civ on my other flank? I guess I'm screwed since the only way to win is throw 100 units at the computer until it dies.

And the "tactics" you mentioned are basically common sense when playing the game. Given considerations, not intricate planning's. "


Do you honestly think I can bombard a city full of modern infantry to 1 health with capapults?

Do you propose that the alternative is to build a few tanks and crush every other civ in the world?

I am just helping someone who explicitely asked for some advice on how to capture cities. Are you saying that everybody should keep their mouth shut because these tips are "common sense"?

Do you think I can get 300 units without any careful planning, building and work when playing on Monarch level by the year 1400?

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by Monoriu
Do you honestly think I can bombard a city full of modern infantry to 1 health with capapults?

Do you propose that the alternative is to build a few tanks and crush every other civ in the world?

I am just helping someone who explicitely asked for some advice on how to capture cities. Are you saying that everybody should keep their mouth shut because these tips are "common sense"?

Do you think I can get 300 units without any careful planning, building and work when playing on Monarch level by the year 1400?

Well. How many catapults do you have, and how many infantry do they have? I've frequently seen single AI catapults hurt my fortified-in-a-city modern units. With equal occurrence have I seen swordsmen score hits against my elite defenders. Remember, with the throw-rocks-at-a-city-until-every-building-falls-down strategy it doesn’t make as much difference what unit is used to attack, since all it needs is one hit. Therefore it stands to reason if there had been enough of them there would have been a mess of trouble. “Enough” varying from case to case. In my case, the archaic equivalents of what you had previously listed attacking an average city of mine would have been more than enough. Way more.

If you have the infrastructure to build a large amount of units then you must also have at least a modest research department. As such I doubt you'd be that far behind in research anyway.
If you lack said infrastructure, for which to facilitate at least average research, then you would be losing for a different reason entirely. Unlike research, the game is quite unforgiving for players who fall behind in domestic development. As it should be.

Or, in the case of the situation you are speaking of, you yourself are in the industrial/modern age, but propose using catapults instead of modern artillery? In that case yes, you probably still could win. If you had the necessary industrial output you could crank out the necessary amount of units and overwhelm the enemy. After all, the modern units were nerfed to keep you from losing if you had no resources. It would come down to the civ who could put out more units. “Quantity is it’s own type of quality,” after all. Since the AI isn't really prone to creating quite so many units it's only a matter of time before they are beaten (Barring any other types of mistakes.) And don’t tell me solution to that is having the AI try to create 300 units of it’s own.

*Imagines waiting for 2000-4500 units to finish moving* >_<

I made it abundantly clear that enemy civs on an equal footing should require some thought to defeat. That’s where I want the challenge to be. Against my contemporaries. When it comes to easy wins I am strictly speaking of hapless civs that are backwards and out of date. You'd still need more than "a few tanks," even with the changes I would like to see happen. No, I don't want to build five or so units and crush every enemy no matter how they stack up in the rankings.

If someone is unaware of basic considerations for the game then by all means, enlighten them. However, the general vibes I've been getting from the "It's fine" group is that of vaunting condescension (GP, I'm looking in your direction ) who think everyone on my side of this argument are 100lb weaklings who don't know how to play the game. So, when you offer an obvious (Albeit specious; Yes it works but I don’t think it should be necessary against an inferior opponent) answer it is all the more irksome. No offense intended.
And when I spoke of “intricate handlings” I was talking about military planning, not overall strategy.

[Venger]

Originally posted by calefein


Can we for a moment consider what would happen if your solution to the "problem" was
implemented and firepower was brought back from the dead. This would place a point
where a tech advance would put you vastly superior to everyone else.

Yeah, like the invention of siege weapons (catapults) heavy cavalry, gunpowder, flight, and armored warfare. Kinda like real life.

This would be more realistic, but would it make for a more fun game? I think not. Players
would scramble up the tech tree to get to gunpowder,

Well no $hit!

and afterwards they could slack of tech wise because of the significant bonus of their new troops over their counterparts.

Huh? Slack off? There is always another advantage to be found. Just because you invented gunpowder doesn't mean you are gonna ride that gravy train when you opponent develops flight.

If the AI got gunpowder before you, you would try to get it at all costs knowing that your troops had little chance of holding up.

Yeah like that never happened. Freaking duh dude, why do you think everyone developed gunpowder units? And you can beat gunpowder units with non-gunpowder units, but not one on one. It'll take two...

Should a knight be able to kill a cavalry unit just because
he was defending? Well yes because otherwise you would have trampled the AI because
of gunpowder, the game's combat system is designed to reward players for using units the
way the designers intended.

This is just nonsensical...

The knight is an offensive unit, so is the cavalry, it's more
advanced but the cavalry was defending, you are penalized for using an offensive unit to
defend a city, and for only using one (two etc.).

Sigh...a cavalry unit should not lose to longbowman. He didn't complain that an offensive unit lost to a defensive unit. He complained a modern unit lost to a medeival one. He complained because a unit that costs massive research and two resources lost to a unit that requires none of that. He didn't require realism, he required reasonableness...

The bonus for superior tech in this game
is a bonus it's significant, but not so great as to lessen everything else.

It's a step backward and in the wrong direction, not to mention into an alternate reality...

Venger

[Monoriu]

Setsuna, I always have a tech advantage over the AIs and that's on Monarch level

My point: if you use all the "common sense" combat procedures, you won't experience absurd combat results very often.

Believe me, if that's not the case, I'll be the first one to throw this game away.

[Setsuna]

How about this - fix the combat, but now most of the civs can match your research power or best it - and the one or two that just can't make the cut are run down. Would that be acceptable? Any unfairness of a Tank always beating a Knight is fairly moot if such a scenario is only possible against two out of group of 7-15 civs. And if you're on the receiving end it means you're really, really awful at the game.
While I'm on this subject, are all of the AI civs equal in intelligence? If so, that's pretty lame. A healthy mix is necessary for proper flavor. There should be randomized (Or better - customizable!) intelligence for each individual AI civ.

And yes, even though I'm a longtime subscriber to the "Common Sense Technique" I still run into wacky results far too often for my tastes.

[Monoriu]

Let me put it this way.

I can accept:

Leave combat as is (but fix all bugs, like air superiority).

Add/subtract a point or two of attack or defence here or there.

Modern Tanks killing warriors 99% of the time.

Battleships killing galleys 99% of the time.

A modern age power over-running a stone age power with a 30 unit army within 10 turns.



I cannot accept:

I have cavalry, you only have musketeers, I make 20 cavalry and wipe out 10 of your cities in 5 turns.

Playing as Deity level, I am in the middle ages, and the AI is in industrial age. AI makes a bunch of cavalry and overrun my empire in no time. I counter-attack with longbowmen when the AI makes the tactical mistake of fortifying a city with cavalry and I still have zip chance.

A modern age power making 3 modern tanks and over-run a stone age power (and you complain when it doesn't).

People complain that combat is broken when they use the units carelessly (cavalry fortied in city example).

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by GP


I don't mean it too harsh. Consider an invisible smiley in the post. Really. Remember our previous exchange from 4 years ago?

LOL ok cool. Some things don't change in four years I guess.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by GP


Khan,

This kind of assertion needs to be better backed up with facts. That kind of claim was the norm in the old days, but we are more scientific nowadays from all the OCC and Oedo stuff. You need to have more than a feeling. Read the Civ2 Strategy forum to see how well people understand the game nowadays...

Hmmm yes I must admit that such research is convincing... maybe it is my own bias I am seeing in the game after all. Interesting reading, even if the subject is a bit dated. Thanks GP.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by SlowThinker


The judge is coming...

On Civ2 deity there is no combat advantage for the AI (except barbs).

2 years of jail for Grim Legacy.

:P

So combat was the same regardless of playing Chieftain or Deity? Whaa... never thought it would be like that. Then again -I never played anything else but Deity.

From glancing over the Civ2 doc, I didn't notice any test of the particular last-rifleman in the city situation I spoke about. However, even if I was wrong in that situation, it isn't very relevant anymore. We should check how this works in Civ3 instead.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

GP directed me here to answer some of the combat issues. Please, stop flinging the insults for a minute! I didn't bother to read the first 9 pages, just number 10.

The only last defender bonus in CivII is the last city defender of your only city. This fellow, even a defense=0 unit, is immune to barbarian attack. The AI can still kill him, tho. Two caveats that may or may not matter:
1) Only tested with the capitol - not in a second city after the first city got razed.
2) Not tested in capitol after all other settled cities were lost.
In other words, the bonus might possibly vanish after a second city is settled, regardless of what happens in the meantime.

The primary defender of a stack is the one best able to defend against that particular attacker. The lone pikeman among a pile of legions, archers, and phalanx will be the one to defend against a chariot attack. An AEGIS will defend against a cruise missile, even with veteran battleships in the stack. Those battleships will defend if the attacker is a sub, etc etc etc.

There is NO KNOWN AI combat advantage based on difficulty level. Barbarians do have a difficulty level modified attack strength, however. This does not exclude the possibility, but it looks extremely unlikely.

Regardin Civ3:
Gameplay is foremost in the structure of how it works. I don't have Civ3 yet so I can only speak from what I've read in posts. I am a fan of firepower, but I suspect the removal of this factor was done for one simple reason -

TO FORCE THE PLAYER TO USE MORE STRATEGY WHEN BATTLING!

Should archers kill cavalry in the field? No! But they will if the cavalry is not used as intended. The addition of bombardment, retreat, and other elements simplify the combat a bit (too much?), but force you to play with multiple unit types and a strategic approach. I think most of the "bugs" or complaints are simply people who haven't adjusted to the new system. In a year you'll read your own post and laugh that you were so frustrated with what will then seem so obvious.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Setsuna


If someone is unaware of basic considerations for the game then by all means, enlighten them. However, the general vibes I've been getting from the "It's fine" group is that of vaunting condescension (GP, I'm looking in your direction ) who think everyone on my side of this argument are 100lb weaklings who don't know how to play the game. So, when you offer an obvious (Albeit specious; Yes it works but I don’t think it should be necessary against an inferior opponent) answer it is all the more irksome. No offense intended.
And when I spoke of “intricate handlings” I was talking about military planning, not overall strategy.

Moi? How dare you accuse me of that! Now drop and give me 20! You 100lb, maggot, you!!


But one serious observation. Most of the complainers about the new combat system are complaining because of losing units. Oh very occasionally one of them will say that they don't want it to work the otjher way...or will claim not to mind losing units if evenly matched. But the general squeeling is very much about losing battles.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Setsuna
How about this - fix the combat, but now most of the civs can match your research power or best it - and the one or two that just can't make the cut are run down. Would that be acceptable? Any unfairness of a Tank always beating a Knight is fairly moot if such a scenario is only possible against two out of group of 7-15 civs. And if you're on the receiving end it means you're really, really awful at the game.
While I'm on this subject, are all of the AI civs equal in intelligence? If so, that's pretty lame. A healthy mix is necessary for proper flavor. There should be randomized (Or better - customizable!) intelligence for each individual AI civ.

And yes, even though I'm a longtime subscriber to the "Common Sense Technique" I still run into wacky results far too often for my tastes.

Why not just have the game give science techs out. No research. just you get techs as time goes on. Seriously...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy

Then again -I never played anything else but Deity.

Good man!!

So combat was the same regardless of playing Chieftain or Deity? Whaa... never thought it would be like that.

I beleive that Cheiftan has a combat "cheat" to the human player and that on all other levels combat is "straight".

[TCO]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
GP directed me here to answer some of the combat issues. Please, stop flinging the insults for a minute! I didn't bother to read the first 9 pages, just number 10.


Gameplay is foremost in the structure of how it works. I don't have Civ3 yet so I can only speak from what I've read in posts. I am a fan of firepower, but I suspect the removal of this factor was done for one simple reason -

TO FORCE THE PLAYER TO USE MORE STRATEGY WHEN BATTLING!

Should archers kill cavalry in the field? No! But they will if the cavalry is not used as intended. The addition of bombardment, retreat, and other elements simplify the combat a bit (too much?), but force you to play with multiple unit types and a strategic approach. I think most of the "bugs" or complaints are simply people who haven't adjusted to the new system. In a year you'll read your own post and laugh that you were so frustrated with what will then seem so obvious.

Thanks, Marquis. It's good to bring in the "howitzers" like you when needed.

To: combat whiners
From: combat apologist

Please keep your facts straight. If you have misconceptions about Civ2 and think that the computer cheats agains you there, you may have misconceptions and bad facts in Civ3. Oh...and just a bit of a poor loser attitude about losing battles.

[zapperio]

You tell them GP!

[wipes proud tears from eyes]

Zap

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by Monoriu
Let me put it this way.

I cannot accept:

I have cavalry, you only have musketeers, I make 20 cavalry and wipe out 10 of your cities in 5 turns.

Playing as Deity level, I am in the middle ages, and the AI is in industrial age. AI makes a bunch of cavalry and overrun my empire in no time. I counter-attack with longbowmen when the AI makes the tactical mistake of fortifying a city with cavalry and I still have zip chance.

A modern age power making 3 modern tanks and over-run a stone age power (and you complain when it doesn't).

People complain that combat is broken when they use the units carelessly (cavalry fortied in city example).

That's many turns behind in research. I would think the Cavalry would have a decent, but not unbeatable, advantage.

You would have a chance, it would just be much smaller. Did you expect a Deity game to be easy? Besides, what if they did bring Riflemen with them? You'd really be in a pickle then.

Are we talking three tanks running over cities and razing them as they go? Since you can't really conquer them with just three tanks. I think razing itself needs reexamining (i.e., why can a small army raze an enormous city?) Anyway, if they're THAT far in behind by the modern age they deserve to lose as fast as possible (It's insulting to you and the other AI’s that they lived THAT long!)

Against an equal or greater power, I'd agree. Cavalry are an offensive unit. But remember, it's not another Cavalry that said people are being attacked by.

As for this:

"I can accept: A modern age power over-running a stone age power with a 30 unit army within 10 turns."

Come on, man! You're talking about WWII level mobilization to defeat the Native Americans!

[Ludwig]

Originally posted by Setsuna


I made it abundantly clear that enemy civs on an equal footing should require some thought to defeat. That’s where I want the challenge to be. Against my contemporaries. When it comes to easy wins I am strictly speaking of hapless civs that are backwards and out of date. You'd still need more than "a few tanks," even with the changes I would like to see happen. No, I don't want to build five or so units and crush every enemy no matter how they stack up in the rankings.

But if you attack a hapless, backwards civ that has out of date units, you will defeat it. There really isn't any question of that, is there?

The question seems to be, should you be able to beat it without losing any units at all, or should you lose a couple of units in the course of beating it?

I don't think there is a technological advantage available to the tech tree in the game that can guarantee a 0% casualty rate, if you hold nukes off to one side and don't consider them part of "combat" per se.

If a civ armed and led to the standards of France in 1935 invaded and attempted to occupy a civ armed and led to the standard of Castile in 1450, the French would win. Unquestionably. They would take each and every objective they tried to take with any determination. But would they do it without losing a man?

It seems to me that they would lose enough men to make losing a unit or two in the game more realistic than not. It doesn't really matter if a clinical examination makes the prospects of 10 knights facing 10 tanks look grim. What matters is that armies that attack other armies - of whatever quality - take casualties. When you get a Grenada - or even a Gulf War - outcome, it's cause for celebration. It's not the normal course of events. And the forces represented by a single unit aren't your army; the set of all of your units is your army. For the game to model the fact that your army will take casualties, you have to lose a unit once in a while.

I think there's a lot of room to be angry with the naval and air combat in the game. The air units are much too weak, even when they work [and Firaxis admits they aren't working]. And for naval units, at least, the tech advantage complaint is valid - while it's almost impossible to invade and occupy a less advanced nation without taking any casualties at all, it goes beyond possible and becomes likely, almost certain, that a navy with a pronounced technological advantage will win its battles without losing a ship. But the ground combat is surprisingly well done.

I realize that it may seem somewhat inelegant, as someone pointed out earlier, to have to slog 100 units at the AI to be sure you'll out-attrit him. But 90% of warfare to date has been about attrition. Firepower advantages haven't made commanders into geniuses; it's just made attrition faster and easier to accomplish. Commanders who consistently win with elegant strategies in the face of superior numbers end up with cities, colleges, and months of the calendar named after them precisely because this is rare. Build the 100 units and use them. If they're better tech than the AI's 100 units, you will always win in the end.

It pleases me greatly to reply to this thread because the combat argument deserves to live on.

[Calorman]

Well after looking at this argument all I can say is thank God I'm not the only one who thinks this game has problems.

Now personally I don't give a damn about real-life and historical analogies. As people here have already mentioned this is a game and it is a game based on numbers. When you quantify something like say, an ironclad you immediately limit it. In real-life an ironclad had thick armour that could not be penetrated by contemporary weapons. In civilisation 3 it has an attack/defence rating of 4. This makes it more than vulnerable to even a galleon's attack. Thus it is limited to a cold unforgiving statistics table and virtual dice rolling. But I accept that. That's just the way games are. Even if you gave the ironclad an attack rating of 100 its number would still come up eventually. And I'm not personally bothered about the whole loss of firepower and whatnot. This is the way it is and that's fine by me.

However there is the second problem people seem to be having and this is stupid, unlikely combat results. I've read the tomes of information here and the slanderings thrown at oneanother. Many of you have droned on about how you should play the game strategically and use combined arms, artillery support blah blah blah. Very nice-totally misses the point.

Tell me on average should a cavalry with an attack rating of 6 defeat a knight who has a defence rating of 3 (no modifiers). Yes or no?
It's not a hard question is it. So why then in every game I have played does the exact opposite happen? Why am I constantly losing when plainly I should be winning? The stories I could tell you . . .
Why just 4 hours ago fought 4 submarines battles and lost them all to transports. What's the point!?

Now this would be absolutely fine if it was
A) the exception rather than the norm
B) It happens in my favour as well as the computers

Unfortunately neither of those is true (well the second one is about 5 percent of the time).
Nope sorry but something is definetly wrong with the combat system. A bug a glitch something is screwed there and it is annoying. I can accept that I'll lose units. As I've said this is a game of numbers and inevitably big numbers will eventualy lose to small ones.
But I am fed up of seeing wave after wave of my brave cavalry boys getting mown down by spearmen. Disheartened at the sight of yet another destroyer getting blown away by a frigate. And when that longbow archer took out yet another panzer, well, that was just the final nail in the coffin.
Some of you guys don't seem to have this problem. So what did Sid take a leak on every other copy of the game or something? Unlucky me I guess.
I just wish for once one of my guys would put up a heroic struggle like the comp always seems to. I just saw a lone AI infantryman hold off 12 of my cavalry (if I was in his shoes I would have gone down after the 2nd attack). Brravo! I thought. Good on the little bastard.
But earlier I had fought a similar battle as the Americans. I had a lone outpost just under Joan De Babe's nose. Apparently she wasn't too impressed with the way I kept touching her breastplate and decided I must be done away with. Suddenly little old "Boston" looked 100 times smaller.
Fortunately though-being the **** that I am-I already had a massive invasion fleet on its way. They were going to dock at Boston and use it as a base of ops. If boston could just hold on for long enough. Great I thought it'll be like the Alimo or somthing. It was defended by 3 rifleman and a cannon btw.
Sure enough Frenchie moves her 40-man army right next to it.
How many units did it take to overwhelm the city? She lost 2 swordsman and 3 archers. Now that's just messed up.

Eh long post.

BTW Venger: I agree almost 100 percent with just about everything you said (don't agree with you about the real-life analogy crap though-just my opinion) and I personlly think you are one of the funniest wisecrackers I've ever seen. I'm going to steal some of your comebacks and use them against my friends. Top thumbs to you sir.

[Monoriu]

"But I am fed up of seeing wave after wave of my brave cavalry boys getting mown down by spearmen. Disheartened at the sight of yet another destroyer getting blown away by a frigate. And when that longbow archer took out yet another panzer, well, that was just the final nail in the coffin.
Some of you guys don't seem to have this problem. So what did Sid take a leak on every other copy of the game or something? Unlucky me I guess. "



Come on, we are all playing the same game (unless you have changed something in the rules editor).

Honestly speaking, I can tell you that I haven't experienced anything you mentioned in your post and it appears that I am not alone. Once in a blue moon I also would get absurd combat results, but nothing even close to what you mentioned in your post.

Why do we get results that are so different? I seriously suspect (though its just speculation), that its a matter of style.

These are some of the possible explanations:

1. Do you ALWAYS produce veteran units (meaning no drafting and always build barracks, harbours, airports before building units)?
2. Do you ALWAYS melee attack with full health veteran or elite units only?
3. Do you ALWAYS withdraw wounded units from combat?
4. Do you ALWAYS protect your wounded units that cannot withdraw to a friendly city in the current turn with at least two 4 health defensive units (or one, in the case of naval units) ?
5. Do you ALWAYS bombard an emeny unit to 1 or 2 health before melee engaging it?
6. Do you ALWAYS bombard a city to below pop. 6 before melee attacking it?
7. Do you ALWAYS avoid combat across rivers?


For me, my answer to all of the above is an unqualified yes. In case you are wondering, YES I ALWAYS bombard a warrior on grassland to 1 health before I attack it with a tank. You may laugh, even I sometimes wonder if that's really necessary, but the fact is, I seldom get wacked combat results.

I guess we may never understand each other until the day that we watch each other play a full game. My prediction is that we'll both be very surprised at how differently we play our games and that's likely the reason why we disagree so much.


And Setsuna, you call a 30 unit army a WWII mobolization? I have 160 mech. inf, 60 artillery, 40 tanks, and 60 workers in my current game on Monarch level. Again, this maybe one of the reasons why our opinion on the combat system is so different.