Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
50 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game» Forums » General

Subject: Does the combat system allow clever play? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Paulo Santoro
Brazil
São Paulo
São Paulo
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Having played only 3 times, I couldn't see the combat system in action so many times. I would like to know if, with this system (the trumps, the fronts, the wounds, the resource abilities...), there is really place to clever play. Wouldn't the result be the same only showing the hands and counting?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Calavera Despierta
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
A fight of 3 cards each, one of each type in each players' hand? No.

But a later game fight between mixed military strength, with each player playing five or six cards, from a deck which may have more of one unit type than another? Absolutely.

If you pay attention to what an opponent has been building you can even counter build accordingly before attacking in the movement phase.

I also will try to lead with a low-strength card that I know will draw out one of their units that I can trump.

When I have more cards to play than they do, I might try to get them to start new fronts, and hold a strong card for the end so I can attack and remove one of their cards and end up with a higher total combat strength.

etc. It's surprisingly very tactical, with plenty of second guessing and so forth.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paulo Santoro
Brazil
São Paulo
São Paulo
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Thank you. Now tell me please, don't you think that the Oracle spoils the joy of the battle?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Timothy Pride
Indonesia
Jakarta
DKI Jakarta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PauloSantoro wrote:
Thank you. Now tell me please, don't you think that the Oracle spoils the joy of the battle?


I don't think so. It makes the battle more strategic to the one holding the Oracle. Try a couple simulation battles for yourself to test it
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mikko Karvonen
Finland
Tampere
Tampere
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The combat system definitely supports playing very badly and wasting your units, flags and resources that way, so the opposite is very much possible as well.

It's also not only about what you do during the battle - it's also how you construct your armies (even though if you are strong in one unit type, focusing only on that is an easy way to destruction) and how your opponents construct theirs. You definitely need to keep an eye on things, especially if you are going for the military victory or it seems that one of the opponents is planning to make you a target of a conquering attempt.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Weed
United States
Memphis
Tennessee
flag msg tools
how sweet the sound...
badge
Fear The Hat !!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I wish the game had a better combat system, other than that I like it a good deal.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nigel Clarke
England
Dursley
Gloucestershire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
weed131 wrote:
I wish the game had a better combat system, other than that I like it a good deal.


That's like saying that you wish Chess has a better combat system!
Someone said that the system in Civ is like a sub-game and I quite agree. I think it works well and is very tactical.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Hammond
United States
League City
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oracle, Castle, Iron techs and healing techs all add more strategy to combat (as do managing your bonuses, units and unit grouping/placement). If I know I am going to buy Democracy in a few turns I will start producing INF. If I know the turn after that is Metal Casting then I switch to ART.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Schwartz
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
The combat system is bass ackwards.

The strength of the units you acquire is random. Wildly random, as far as the relative strengths go early in the game, as some units have three times the combat power of others for the same cost. Starting the game with particularly weak units can effectively cripple your nation for a very long time. I for one shudder at the thought of looking at my opening hand of 1/1/1. Not only is my army going to be horribly weak for turns and turns, but there's even that many less 1's in circulation for everybody else.

Consequently, and absurdly, once I have more units in my stack, it may very well likely be my goal to purposely suicide my 1-base-strength units in conflict, so as to guarantee that I can't accidentally pull them again in future battles. That's right: I can improve my nation's overall combat prowess by sending my forces in to die on purpose. They can't be trained. They can't be replaced. They can only be destroyed.

Conversely, when fighting another nation who sticks a 1 into a new front, I should -- and would -- explicitly refuse to attack that unit. Other than the unlikely circumstance where that 1 extra combat strength matters for the particular battle that I'm fighting, I have no real reason to kill it, whereas leaving it alive results in my opponent having a weaker overall force. The more 1's in his stack, the easier time I'll have beating up on him later, as he'll invariably draw them again and again.

Thus, what would have been an interesting and dynamic combat environment of unit type trumping, special abilities and careful tactical maneuvers instead disintegrates into a bizarre dance wherein each player is trying to improve his overall military prowess by getting his own worthless units killed while carefully avoiding killing his opponent's worthless units. Now, I suppose technically that too counts as "clever play". But it's still pretty ridiculous.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Kelly
United States
Longmont
Colorado
flag msg tools
Allow me to introduce myself. I am Hexachlorophene J. Goodfortune, Kidnapper-At-Large, and Devourer of Tortoises par Excellence, at your service.
badge
If you can read this, then this sentence is false.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Xaxyx wrote:
The strength of the units you acquire is random. Wildly random, as far as the relative strengths go early in the game, as some units have three times the combat power of others for the same cost. Starting the game with particularly weak units can effectively cripple your nation for a very long time. I for one shudder at the thought of looking at my opening hand of 1/1/1. Not only is my army going to be horribly weak for turns and turns, but there's even that many less 1's in circulation for everybody else.


I wouldn't call it "wildly random". A while back I posted the odds of each possible combination. Note that the odds of the scenario that so terrifies you are 1 in 125. And your standing forces don't need to remain weak for long because...

Quote:
Consequently, and absurdly, once I have more units in my stack, it may very well likely be my goal to purposely suicide my 1-base-strength units in conflict, so as to guarantee that I can't accidentally pull them again in future battles. That's right: I can improve my nation's overall combat prowess by sending my forces in to die on purpose.


In other words, there is an engaging (but minor) deck-building aspect. This is not any different than purposely trashing coppers and estates in Dominion.

Quote:
They can't be trained. They can't be replaced. They can only be destroyed.


Or they can be upgraded. They still won't be as strong as the stronger units of their type, but the difference diminishes in proportion, and upgraded weak units can hold their own or even defeat non-upgraded regular units. Or you can build Himeji, and suddenly your weak units are regular units.

Quote:
Conversely, when fighting another nation who sticks a 1 into a new front, I should -- and would -- explicitly refuse to attack that unit. Other than the unlikely circumstance where that 1 extra combat strength matters for the particular battle that I'm fighting, I have no real reason to kill it, whereas leaving it alive results in my opponent having a weaker overall force. The more 1's in his stack, the easier time I'll have beating up on him later, as he'll invariably draw them again and again.


Generally, I find that (when not playing barbarians) a new front is often best responded to with a weak new front, regardless of the strength. The first unit played may well be a trap to draw out trump, and there's no rush in any case; that unit isn't going anywhere, and you can kill it later.

Quote:
Thus, what would have been an interesting and dynamic combat environment of unit type trumping, special abilities and careful tactical maneuvers instead disintegrates into a bizarre dance wherein each player is trying to improve his overall military prowess by getting his own worthless units killed while carefully avoiding killing his opponent's worthless units. Now, I suppose technically that too counts as "clever play". But it's still pretty ridiculous.


You're suggesting that combat would be more interesting if all units had the same strength? That is what I find ridiculous, since in that environment combat would merely devolve into boring chain-trumping.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Schwartz
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Peristarkawan wrote:
I wouldn't call it "wildly random". A while back I posted the odds of each possible combination. Note that the odds of the scenario that so terrifies you are 1 in 125.

From this I conclude that there exists a 3.2% chance every game that at least one player starts with 1/1/1. You may consider that to be acceptable odds that someone is just flat-out totally screwed from the start of the game for no particularly good reason. I don't.

Leveraging the stats you provided, I further conclude that there's a 28.3% chance that at least one player starts with 1/1/2 or worse. Those odds are even more appalling than I had imagined them to be. That'll teach me to skimp on the math. Sheesh.

Quote:
In other words, there is an engaging (but minor) deck-building aspect. This is not any different than purposely trashing coppers and estates in Dominion.

It is vastly different insofar as that it's my opponent who's oftentimes doing the "deck building" on my behalf. I attack an opponent. I've got 1/1/3. My opponent plays a 1. Surely I wouldn't want to kill it; I'd rather it lie around festering in his stack. So now I can:

- Play my 3 in a new front, and hope one or both of his two remaining armies won't end up smashing it and actually make me lose this fight; or
- Play a 1 in a new front, where my opponent will "return the favor" by letting it live.

Now, far be it from me to speak toward theme, design intent, the relationship between mechanics and dynamics in a so-called combat game, or whatever. But something just tickles the back of my brain when I look down at what is, in some vague, abstract level, a battlefield and discover that the opponents are going out of their way to suicide their own forces and avoid killing their enemies' forces.

Quote:
Or they can be upgraded. They still won't be as strong as the stronger units of their type, but the difference diminishes in proportion, and upgraded weak units can hold their own or even defeat non-upgraded regular units. Or you can build Himeji, and suddenly your weak units are regular units.

It is true that the discrepancy diminishes proportionally as the game advances. Late-game, the difference between weak units and strong units is less game-breaking and more mechanically-interesting. My qualms lie in the early game, where skirmishes and squabbles could have long-lasting effects. There, where it's most important that the randomness of uncontrolled starting strengths be the most mitigated, it is instead the environment where they are most exacerbated.

Quote:
Quote:
Conversely, when fighting another nation who sticks a 1 into a new front, I should -- and would -- explicitly refuse to attack that unit. Other than the unlikely circumstance where that 1 extra combat strength matters for the particular battle that I'm fighting, I have no real reason to kill it, whereas leaving it alive results in my opponent having a weaker overall force. The more 1's in his stack, the easier time I'll have beating up on him later, as he'll invariably draw them again and again.


Generally, I find that (when not playing barbarians) a new front is often best responded to with a weak new front, regardless of the strength. The first unit played may well be a trap to draw out trump, and there's no rush in any case; that unit isn't going anywhere, and you can kill it later.

True, but this is merely a corollary of my original point -- there's almost never a strategic benefit to responding to your opponent's weak unit by crushing it. This strikes me as immensely counter-intuitive at the very least. To each his own.

Quote:
You're suggesting that combat would be more interesting if all units had the same strength? That is what I find ridiculous, since in that environment combat would merely devolve into boring chain-trumping.

I haven't suggested anything. If I were to make a suggestion, it would be to find ways to mitigate the potential for gaping disparity between starting unit configurations. Perhaps it would be as simple as removing the 1-strength units. Perhaps it would be as effective as giving all units a global +1, reducing the maximal starting ratio of unit strength to 2:1 from 3:1. Whatever the means, my goal would be to move the combat system more toward an environment that rewards players for finding clever ways to crush their opponents while keeping their own forces alive -- you know, like real combat games.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paulo Santoro
Brazil
São Paulo
São Paulo
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Robert, you would conclude that this system is too much luck based? I don't think that it's the case.

You have 1/1/1.
1) Your opponents don't know that.
2) Think about dice based battles. You are helpless: you have to go to combat and see what you roll. In Civ, you "know your rolls" many turns before! You have chance and time to prepare yourself.
3) You can go for 3 other ways to win. You can defend yourself with city walls and barracks.
4) If you buy new units, the odds are in your favor now.
5) Before you fight your opponents, you can fight villages. It's easy to kill the bad units against villages.
6) As our friend above said, upgrading the armies will diminish the proportion of inferiority.

There is some luck in the game, of course, but there is much more space for skill.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Kelly
United States
Longmont
Colorado
flag msg tools
Allow me to introduce myself. I am Hexachlorophene J. Goodfortune, Kidnapper-At-Large, and Devourer of Tortoises par Excellence, at your service.
badge
If you can read this, then this sentence is false.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Xaxyx wrote:
Leveraging the stats you provided, I further conclude that there's a 28.3% chance that at least one player starts with 1/1/2 or worse. Those odds are even more appalling than I had imagined them to be. That'll teach me to skimp on the math. Sheesh.


More like 29.5%, although I haven't done the exact math. I really don't think it's a big deal. So there is a significant chance that one player has a bad starting unit draw. Fortunately, the game is not all about conquest, and there are three other victory types to choose from.

Quote:
It is vastly different insofar as that it's my opponent who's oftentimes doing the "deck building" on my behalf. I attack an opponent. I've got 1/1/3. My opponent plays a 1. Surely I wouldn't want to kill it; I'd rather it lie around festering in his stack. So now I can:

- Play my 3 in a new front, and hope one or both of his two remaining armies won't end up smashing it and actually make me lose this fight; or
- Play a 1 in a new front, where my opponent will "return the favor" by letting it live.


This scenario only sucks if both of your 1s trump his. Otherwise, just play your own 1 against his; either his trumps yours and kills it for you, or they mutually annihilate. Either way you get to go home happy.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Calavera Despierta
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
It seems to me that those who dislike the combat system in Civ dislike it specifically because it is "random" and they cannot exert control over it. I would imagine these are the Eurogamers or those with Euro leanings, who believe they ought to be able to exert control over every aspect of a game. Nowhere does Civ promise this. Indeed, where simulating real war and fighting are concerned, to have some randomness thrown in, creating a sense of real risk (no pun intended), is MORE accurate a simulation of combat, than less. COMBAT IS ALWAYS risky. It is ALWAYS better to attempt to win without fighting - even Sun Tzu says this, for crying out loud. So you should know going in, that you are gambling.

Is the combat system counter-intuitive or hard to learn and get used to? YES

Is is "bass-ackwards"? Only to someone who fails to grok what combat really is.

Are there actions that a player can take within the game to mitigate this randomness or channel this chaos? Absolutely. They include, but are not limited to:
1) pursuing tech upgrades that upgrade units. A card with a 1 or 2 at level 1 can easily become a 3-4 at level 2.
2) pusuing buildings such as barracks or wonders such as Himeji castle which provide combat bonuses.
3) pursuing resource-type techs which provide bonuses in combat, such as the ability of a weaker unit to do extra damage, or a stronger unit to heal itself
4) pursuing a larger unit figure stack, which allows a player to draw more unit cards in a combat and offset the risk of only drawing "low" cards.

The complaint that combat in Civ "doesn't work" or is "broken" or "poorly designed" is based on nothing but opinion. The hard evidence of the game design, including the four items I've noted above, clearly demonstrate that such a position is based on a fundamental lack of knowledge about the intricacies that this game has to offer.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Schwartz
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
MScrivner wrote:
It seems to me that those who dislike the combat system in Civ dislike it specifically because it is "random" and they cannot exert control over it. I would imagine these are the Eurogamers or those with Euro leanings, who believe they ought to be able to exert control over every aspect of a game. Nowhere does Civ promise this. Indeed, where simulating real war and fighting are concerned, to have some randomness thrown in, creating a sense of real risk (no pun intended), is MORE accurate a simulation of combat, than less. COMBAT IS ALWAYS risky. It is ALWAYS better to attempt to win without fighting - even Sun Tzu says this, for crying out loud. So you should know going in, that you are gambling.

Allow me to dispel your illusion. I dislike the combat system in Civ. However, I have no problem with randomness, in and upon itself. What I do have a problem with is extreme randomness. I object when it's at all possible -- however unlikely -- for one player to be flat-out, automatically screwed beyond redemption as a result of random fluctuation resulting in especially bad luck.

I'll note, for example, that some suggestions that I mentioned (I'm not necessarily voting for them, just exploring them) were the amelioration of the range of randomness by either flat-out removing 1's, or by giving every unit an inherent +1 to mitigate the extreme strength difference between the weakest and strongest units. In both of these scenarios, randomness still exists. In both of these scenarios, one can still point at a player and make note that he got the absolutely worst draw possible. But these scenarios differ from the by-the-book rules insofar as that while he's screwed, he's not screwed as badly. It's still random; it's still to his disadvantage; it's still beyond his control. But the hole he's in isn't anywhere nearly as arbitrarily deep.

Quote:
The complaint that combat in Civ "doesn't work" or is "broken" or "poorly designed" is based on nothing but opinion.

As is the counter-criticism that the game is just fine even with the extremely chaotic levels of randomness inherent to it. Consider the other extreme, to demonstrate this point. What if someone suggested that to improve the game, we make the ranges of combat values even wider? How about 1-4? Or 1-5? Wouldn't that be even more interesting, more risky, more intense? After all, the excruciating disadvantage of 1-1-1 vs 5-5-5 can, in theory, be mitigated by technology, buildings, and resource-driven combat bonuses. Heck, let's throw in the occasional 10, just to liven things up!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Kelly
United States
Longmont
Colorado
flag msg tools
Allow me to introduce myself. I am Hexachlorophene J. Goodfortune, Kidnapper-At-Large, and Devourer of Tortoises par Excellence, at your service.
badge
If you can read this, then this sentence is false.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Xaxyx wrote:
Allow me to dispel your illusion. I dislike the combat system in Civ. However, I have no problem with randomness, in and upon itself. What I do have a problem with is extreme randomness. I object when it's at all possible -- however unlikely -- for one player to be flat-out, automatically screwed beyond redemption as a result of random fluctuation resulting in especially bad luck.


A 1-1-1 is not "screwed beyond redemption", as Paolo pointed out several ameliorating circumstances.

Quote:
As is the counter-criticism that the game is just fine even with the extremely chaotic levels of randomness inherent to it. Consider the other extreme, to demonstrate this point. What if someone suggested that to improve the game, we make the ranges of combat values even wider? How about 1-4? Or 1-5? Wouldn't that be even more interesting, more risky, more intense? After all, the excruciating disadvantage of 1-1-1 vs 5-5-5 can, in theory, be mitigated by technology, buildings, and resource-driven combat bonuses. Heck, let's throw in the occasional 10, just to liven things up!


That would likely be taking things too far, so we can be glad the designer didn't do that. That doesn't tell us anything about whether the game is too random as is.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Calavera Despierta
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Xaxyx wrote:
MScrivner wrote:
It seems to me that those who dislike the combat system in Civ dislike it specifically because it is "random" and they cannot exert control over it. I would imagine these are the Eurogamers or those with Euro leanings, who believe they ought to be able to exert control over every aspect of a game. Nowhere does Civ promise this. Indeed, where simulating real war and fighting are concerned, to have some randomness thrown in, creating a sense of real risk (no pun intended), is MORE accurate a simulation of combat, than less. COMBAT IS ALWAYS risky. It is ALWAYS better to attempt to win without fighting - even Sun Tzu says this, for crying out loud. So you should know going in, that you are gambling.

Allow me to dispel your illusion. I dislike the combat system in Civ. However, I have no problem with randomness, in and upon itself. What I do have a problem with is extreme randomness.


But the combat system is NOT extreme randomness. Do you get to choose which cards to play at what time? Yes. Are there ways to improve the strength of your cards if you feel they are too low? YES. Are there ways to draw more cards if you starting cards are too low? Yes. Are there ways to play more than just your three starting cards in combat? YES. Are there even ways to win the overall combat even if you have LOW combat cards? YES! Your complaints are hollow and not based in fact. That you can sometimes get unlucky and draw a low card does not invalidate the entire combat system. What this really sounds like to me is a bad case of sour grapes.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Cieslik
United States
Arlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Banana!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
2-4 would be more reasonable than 1-3. Then a "low" unit could at least deal half of the full health in damage to a "high" unit. Right now a 1 is completely worthless.

There are of course ways to deal with being dealt the lower units, but the fact that some players start out with *strictly superior* cards is somewhat annoying. It doesn't break the game, but it causes some problems.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Calavera Despierta
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
angelkurisu wrote:
2-4 would be more reasonable than 1-3. Then a "low" unit could at least deal half of the full health in damage to a "high" unit. Right now a 1 is completely worthless.

There are of course ways to deal with being dealt the lower units, but the fact that some players start out with *strictly superior* cards is somewhat annoying. It doesn't break the game, but it causes some problems.


Problems that you strategize to overcome.

You could just as easily have been dealt land tile surrounding your starting tile that land lock you. And that slows down your second and third city builds by at least a turn, making you weaker than everyone else. But do you necessarily lose because of this bad luck? Hell no. You research navigation and fight for your right to party.

The point is, the fact that you CAN draw 1's 1) Does not mean that you will, and 2) Does not mean that the combat system is broken or "entirely random." Indeed the opposite seems to be the case, since it encourages creative and strategic play to respond accordingly.

I am not at home now, but does anyone mind digging out their copy and checking? I'd like to know, how many total cards of each unit type there are, and of that number what is the exact number of ones?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Long
Canada
Saskatoon
Saskatchewan
flag msg tools
A trivial solution (and one that I'm thinking about using in our group in future) to the problem of a vastly disparate starting draw is just give all players a '2' for their basic starting forces (Germany's extra infantry can and should still be random I think). A player who gets a strong draw of two 3's off the bat just has such an overwhelming advantage particularly against the Barbarians.

Other than that, I don't think there's any problem with drawing your unit cards randomly for the rest of the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Kelly
United States
Longmont
Colorado
flag msg tools
Allow me to introduce myself. I am Hexachlorophene J. Goodfortune, Kidnapper-At-Large, and Devourer of Tortoises par Excellence, at your service.
badge
If you can read this, then this sentence is false.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MScrivner wrote:
I am not at home now, but does anyone mind digging out their copy and checking? I'd like to know, how many total cards of each unit type there are, and of that number what is the exact number of ones?


Each of the basic types has three 1s, nine 2s, and three 3s. The distribution of aircraft is a bit different, but I don't remember it without checking.

ETA: I think the aircraft distribution is three 5s, three 6s, and two 7s.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Ozimek
Denmark
Aalborg
flag msg tools
badge
Must resist M:tG. Boardgames are my methadone :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How about a very simple fix: A mulligan.

If the sum of the strength of your starting forces is four or less, you may mulligan and draw a new set.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Timothy Pride
Indonesia
Jakarta
DKI Jakarta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
angelkurisu wrote:
2-4 would be more reasonable than 1-3. Then a "low" unit could at least deal half of the full health in damage to a "high" unit. Right now a 1 is completely worthless.

There are of course ways to deal with being dealt the lower units, but the fact that some players start out with *strictly superior* cards is somewhat annoying. It doesn't break the game, but it causes some problems.


If all units somewhat at the same level, then you will ALWAYS be annoyed when someone playing German.

Xaxyx wrote:
As is the counter-criticism that the game is just fine even with the extremely chaotic levels of randomness inherent to it. Consider the other extreme, to demonstrate this point. What if someone suggested that to improve the game, we make the ranges of combat values even wider? How about 1-4? Or 1-5? Wouldn't that be even more interesting, more risky, more intense? After all, the excruciating disadvantage of 1-1-1 vs 5-5-5 can, in theory, be mitigated by technology, buildings, and resource-driven combat bonuses. Heck, let's throw in the occasional 10, just to liven things up!


Haters gonna hate. You have all reasonable reasons laid out to you. But not only you don't want to try it, you just flat out deny it baselessly. Tell you what, if I play against you and you get 3-3-3 and I get 1-1-1, and I still win (although maybe not by military), I really doubt you can change your mind. You're not open to reasons, just want to dismiss the combat saying it's random because the way to control the randomness are not to your liking, and borderline trolling.


People, just TRY to play better, instead of suggesting many kinds of variants. Many people here have already given good advices about combat, even the OP. Try it, and if it doesn't work, you're not trying hard enough.

5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paulo Santoro
Brazil
São Paulo
São Paulo
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
"People, just TRY to play better, instead of suggesting many kinds of variants."

thumbsupthumbsupthumbsup
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benjamin Pohl
Germany
Mülheim
NRW
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I like the combat system and I think IT IS very tactical. But some players in my group also recommended the randomness of the starting units, so we build up a house rule: Every player starts with an total strength of six! Just make four piles (in a 4-player-game, of course...):

Infantry Mounted Ranged

3 2 1

1 3 2

2 1 3

2 2 2

Every player gets one pile randomly - so every player has the same overall strength, but can´t be outstanded... after start of game the randomness counts as usual...

Maybe you want to try it...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.