Hey guys,

Never had an issue with a FF game before, first time poster.

So we've found that during our games it seems almost too easy to win by military victory. The person with the largest battle hand usually wins, which is to be expected. However, in the case of a city, I believe there is an issue with the mechanics. According to the rules the only bonuses a city gets are the bonus to attack power (increased with walls), and a +3 to battle hand size. So in the case of a city where no units (except attackers) can enter, what is stopping a person with a high stacking limit to walk up and annihilate a city with ease?

For example:

Scenario 1: Player A has stacking limit of 5, marches to the capital city and attacks. Player B defends his capital city with added masonry/walls bonus. Player A has no barracks or academy, but has +2 battle hand size for each figure, which in this case is 5 figures, for a total battle hand size of 9. Whereas player B has a capital city, +16 to military bonus, but a battle hand size of 3. According to the rules (if I understand them correctly) that the +16 bonus is only used at times where there is no trumped unit, and the defender has a chance to retaliate. So in the ratio of 9 cards to 3, chances are that Player A is going to simply trump Player B everytime and waltz into the city without a single loss. Negating the +16 bonus completely and ultimately ending the game with ease.

Compare this to the video games for example, where you could fortify your city with extra armies. This seems to be not the case as no friendly figures can enter a city.

Seems like there should be the option for more defense? Maybe I'm not understanding the bonus system correctly.

Can anyone clarify for me?

Thanks in advance.

Well, the first mistake I see is that a city's battle hand is actually 6 and player A would have an 11. You start with 3 automatically and because you are defending a city, you get +3 more. Plus, don't forget that some techs give you advantages in combat, if you have them. Next, is the combat bonus. The combat bonus is only used at the end of the combat. And, it's the net difference between the two players. But, let's assume player A has no bonuses and it all belongs to the Player B. They would get the bonus card at +16. So, let's take that example combat. Then it would come down to the numbers. At the end of the combat, Player B would already be starting with a strength of 16. So it all depends on how the combat plays out, but Player B has a good chance of coming out on top. It's not pretty, but, it's what you would expect if someone with 5 armies invaded your city. Plus, Player A would have to spend several turns buying units to be able to have a hand size of 11. It would behoove you (and the other players, if its 3 or more players) to start working on building armies near your capital or send them to blockade his cities so he can't produce units.

Thanks for the info. I was not aware that a single figure/city had a default battle hand of 3. I thought it was just 1 for figures, and 0 for cities(bonus battle hand cards only).

I'm still not sure about the combat bonus system then, the rules don't go into much detail about the bonus. I'm assuming that the battle bonus works out like this:

Level 2 archer with 4 attack/life, gets a bonus of 6. He now has a total of 10 attack and 10 life?

Incorrect.

The battle bonus from Great Genarals and Barracks and such is ONLY added AFTER all units on both sides have been played and resolved. It is NEVER added to ANY unit during batle.

In other words it comes into effect when the total strength is tallied up at the end of combat. You simply add your combat bonus to your unit strength total.

Example:

At the end of battle Player A have 3 surviving units with strength 2, 2 and 3 (=7). He also has an Academy and a Great Genaral for a total combat bonus of 8 (if i recall correctly). His total would then be 7+8=15
Player B has 5 surviving units with strength 2, 3, 3, 3 and 3 (=14). He has no combat bonus. His total would then be 14+0=14
In this example, Player A would win even if he has fewer surviving units due to the fact that he has a better combat bonus.

Ok, that makes sense. Seems like a silly way to do it, but it makes sense now.

Thanks for the help guys!

Fnoffen said:

And when i'm playing a battle where my bonuses are too much of the enemy and the enemy have no units to play but i have some units in my hand i must place down all my units or i can hide my cards?

I would say that you would have to draw and play your hand. The other players have already seen what types of units you've bought the most of anyway...

I would like to clarify two things, in case anyone checks and wants some further clarification.

1) Both players in the fight must reveal all units that entered the battle.

This is because technically, the battle isn't over until all units have been placed in a front.
If one player has no units left, they just pass their turn to play a unit and the player with units still in hand plays another.

Base Rules, p.25 - '4. Resolving the Battle'
"After both players have played all of their battle forces..."

2) A player does not need to have any surviving forces to win the battle.

Upon reading the 'Resolving the Battle' rules, at no point does it indicate that surviving forces are required to win.
It does state that any surviving forces are healed at the end of the battle.
To win, you just need to have the highest total units strength plus the combat bonus.

Base Rules, p.25 - '4. Resolving the Battle'
"... highest total wins... with ties going to the defender."

I checked the FAQ for the base rules and the expansion rules, and neither have any stipulations about needing to have any units survive the battle to still be able to win.

So, this means if an opponent has no units but +16 bonus, don't bring in only 13 points worth of units to attack.

If the game's rule-maker sees this, please confirm or deny the validty of the above.

Even though I'm not one of the rule-makers of the game, I would like to say that in my oppinion, the validity of your clarifying statement is absolute and irrefutable.

I think you are wrong guys.

Rule book p.25

4. Resolving battle - says

Then, each player tallies up the strength of all of their
surviving units, adding in the value of the combat bonus card (if
they have it). The player with the highest total wins the battle,
with ties going to the defender

If you have no surviving forces , nothing to add in. Am I right ?

P.S. rule book sucks

If you believe us to be wrong, send in a rules query to FFG. If they answer that you cannot win unless you have at least one surviving unit, I shall gladly eat my hat. Such a rule would've been too big a deal to be omitted from not only the original rulebook but the FAQ and the expansion rulebook as well.

Or you can try telling a mathematician that you can't solve any equation that adds zero at any point…

>>Or you can try telling a mathematician that you can't solve any equation that adds zero at any point…

Come on don't be an ass, I meant how you can just add bonuses if you do not have any surviving units. That is a bit strange.

One more thing , if I attack an enemy army in my outskirts , does my army get the city defense bonuses ?

Thanks in advance

The answer to that question would have to be no. The City Defense Bonus is only given when defending a city centre.

OK. Thanks !

To the makers of Sid Mir's Civ boardgame… Please please change this in the game! You simply cannot win a battle when all your troops are wiped off the map! Army barracks for training your soldiers cannot bring victory to dead bodies lying on the field of battle. Army generals need to be taken into battle with you (and risk dying). The easiest way to resolve this problem is by coming out with a military expansion! You could fix the problem, add new military techs, add espionage (by allowing for something covering and hiding a technology choice until it is needed and unveiled in a battle), add bonus for defending and attacking in different sorts of military terrains, add great leaders - like world wonders - giving special abilities, add the possibility of having several standing armies that are represented by particular army markers, add the possibility of producing or developing veteran troops… so that the clunky illogical rule of winning a battle after being decimated by the opposition can be fixed once and for all!

The game is beautiful. I'm a pacifist and prefer any win other than military but this detail irks me to no end. I enjoy the game as it is but I sometimes cringe at certain points in the game where it goes against everything involved in building civilizations - being able to realistically defend against attack.

Now that my rant is done I'll go back to playing and enjoying your Civ boardgame!

Bucko said:

Yes i'm agreed with you but if you try the game without your home rules you will see that another victory become impossible. I like the mechanics to do battle, and i suppose that militar bonus are some unit that you can't see, (like walls your defense in the city). Now the expansion is so balanced, probably in 2/3 player the game is so fast to find modern wonder but the battle are very fast and easy.