The Civ IV Combat System

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Why isn't this thread topped?

I'm working on a better one, meaning more overview for all levels of players, with updated info. Most of it is somewhere in this one, but gets lost to casual readers.

I've been working on it for 3 weeks now, and I don't see it finished very soon though Busy, busy, busy... you know the drill.

DeepO

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by DeepO

I'm working on a better one, meaning more overview for all levels of players, with updated info. Most of it is somewhere in this one, but gets lost to casual readers.

I've been working on it for 3 weeks now, and I don't see it finished very soon though Busy, busy, busy... you know the drill.

DeepO

I'm looking forward to that - and the rest of your AU101 game, DeepO, when you get the chance.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


I'm looking forward to that - and the rest of your AU101 game, DeepO, when you get the chance.

Heh... as some other civ pet project just took priority, I hope I can play some games again soon!

DeepO

[Ellestar]

Well, if you're still planning to support this article, probably i should mention that there is an updated version of a combat calculator here http://c4combat.narod.ru/c4c.htm (v0.16)
It supports non-full hp, chances vs several units in a row

[DeepO]

Thanks Ellestar. I'll check it out. One of these days One note, though: I suspect I'm the source for about every combat calculator out there. I'm the only playtester which did some serious research in this area, and none of the 'normal' players have access to the underlying code... Maybe I translate it wrong to algorithms (like initially with the effect of wounds), and I certainly welcome all comments... I'll adjust my algorithm after spotting mistakes. For others to be able to do the same, we'll have to wait until the SDK gets released.

That's one of the problems: the non-full hps like you call it: my original formula had it wrong, but I did correct this somewhere in the last 5 pages... I didn't update the initial post, so people only reading that one get the wrong idea. Oh well... when I find time, all will be corrected

DeepO

[Mujadaddy]

Originally posted by Dubhghlas
Let's compare systems. Let's compare the concept of artillery from, oh, say, SMAC, where artillery does damage to unit morale. Or the concept of CTP, where artillery is used in a battle to do what artillery DOES in a battle; soften up the other side so that they aren't as capable in battle.

The issue isn't whether there are aspects of the game engine that are better. The sole and whole issue which sparked our exchange of words was the very specific assertion that this one aspect of the engine was flawed. It is. Admit it.

Never!

"do what artillery DOES in a battle; soften up the other side so that they aren't as capable in battle."

Have you used siege weapons in this game?

[Bobby Chicken]

Ugh, lets just say that the odds of winning increase expodentially with increased attack power and first strikes.

[Randolph]

Thanks for the info on the combat system

A few notes:
I find the combat system is, if anything, to predictable. I liked the randomness of civ3, it forced adaptability.

For the most part I've like the combat system, but I'm sill ambivalent about the whole suicide catapults thing. It seems to "work," but it also seems somewhat tedious and counterintuitive.

I have to agree with DeepO that drawing broad conclusions about the combat system being "imbalanced" at this point seems very premature.

Arguing about "realism," or lack thereof, in a game like Civilization is unpersuasive at best, and downright absurd at it worst. History and "realism" has always been a source of inspiration for the civ games, but none of them take seriously the idea of modeling reality. The game must be judged for its internal consistency, not by picking out certain aspects and comparing them to reality.

[Dubhghlas]

Originally posted by Mujadaddy
Never!

"do what artillery DOES in a battle; soften up the other side so that they aren't as capable in battle."

Have you used siege weapons in this game?

I have. I ask you straight: when was the last time that a unit of catapults took over a town? Huh? Can you truly conceive it happening? Can you see the catapults attacking the cavalry unit stationed in the town? Can you truly imagine the catapults taking on the infantry garrison? Without any supporting infantry of their own?

If you have to strain at a gnat to explain how it is "real," you are simply rationalizing the flaw in the system. Oh, that's called being a fanboi.

[okblacke]

If you have to strain at a gnat to explain how it is "real," you are simply rationalizing the flaw in the system.

Your mistake seems to be that you believe "unrealistic = flawed".

Every Civ release invites comments from a certain group of players who talk about how unrealistic the combat is. And ultimately it always boils down to (a not entirely rhetorical) "Who cares?" Not just combat-focused people, of course. Some folks are obsessed with the naval aspects, the railroads have always been a hot topic, and personally I would prefer a style of urban development that wasn't centered around an arbitrary "fat cross".

Civ invites comments about realism because it frames itself in pseudo-realistic terms. But on the realism continuum, it's somewhere between Capitalism and Donkey Kong.

Games are like any other form of fiction. They only need to be consistent enough within themselves to allow our suspension of disbelief. But we do have to allow it, first and foremost.

If bombard units capturing towns doesn't work for you, then it doesn't. But that doesn't mean that mujadaddy (or any of the other hundreds of people who praise the combat system) are "fanboi"s. I'd think to qualify for that honor you'd have to first agree that bombard units capturing towns is over that arbitrary line that stretches credibility beyond the breaking point, but then deny your feelings because you love Sid, or whatever. I doubt you know mujadaddy well enough to say that that's the case.

[Dubhghlas]

All games have arbitrary aspects to them. The game of chess has bishops and queens involved in the battle that is represented. Why? Just because. One can go into the development of the modern form of the game to explain it, but it certainly isn't "real" and it certainly is arbitrary.

And, as you correctly point out, Civilization in all its iterations isn't completely "real." Indeed, that's why I prefer Europa Universalis, a much more "real" game.

But at the heart of it all is this: Why call it a "catapult" unit if it isn't intended to act like a catapult? Especially when in prior iterations of the game (including Alpha Centauri), such units have worked more like true "artillery" units.

The original comment that sparked the debate was posted in #122 by Chemical Ollie, who said that the system was, in his opinion, a step back from that used by Civ 3. He specifically noted the ability of artillery units to "attack." This is important: the assertion isn't just that it is silly to have "artillery" units attack, it is that it is silly to have them do that when prior versions of the game correctly moved beyond that concept, to a more "real" concept. Which gets to the underlying point of making new versions of an older game, which is to improve it, make it better. And while this game isn't "real," it does attempt to simulate some "real" things, which is why they call the unit "catapult" instead of "suicide squad for knocking hit points off of defenders and maybe winning the battle outright guys."

In short, it's not that I object to the concept of a unit that does what the catapults do, but rather that I (and the others who agree) object to putting that function on a unit that is modelled in all other respects to look and behave like a real historical warfare unit that did not do those things, especially when prior versions of the game moved away from that simplistic approach.

Now, if you look carefully, the only suggestions offered for why this change isn't a "bad" thing are a) "it's only a game, with arbitrary rules," and b) "you have to come up with an explanation that gets around the lack of realism; with some serious suspension of disbelief, along with some convoluted thinking, you can do it." I've explained why "a)" isn't an answer to the complaint. As to "b)," the repeated attempt to "justify" what has happened in this way (as opposed to saying something like, "Yeah, it's kind of stupid, have to agree with you there, but I've just learned to adapt to it and think of it this way"), is the sort of thing one does only when one cannot conceive of criticism of what one likes, which, IMHO, is almost exactly the definition of "fanboi."

[Thoth]

I agree that the implementation of artillery units in CIV is a step back from the SMAC model. I think that the lack of counterbattery fire seriously detracts from the tactical aspect of the game. It's been a couple of months since I've fired up a game of SMAC, but IIRC one of the few things the AI did moderately well with was it's use of artillery, at least in a counterbattery role.

I do however think that the CIV 4 artillery system is superior to that used in Civ 1 and 2. In both of these games artillery units acted just like ordinary units, they simply had high attack/low movement and defense ratings compared to other units of their era.

I don't know if it will be possible to implement an SMAC style artillery system with the SDK or not, but I certainly hope it will be. Ideally, we'd also be able to give it an inteception chance similar to the way air units work.

[okblacke]

Originally posted by Dubhghlas
All games have arbitrary aspects to them.

So we agree.

And, as you correctly point out, Civilization in all its iterations isn't completely "real."

A disagreement in degree: Realism, in any Civilization game must, in my opinion, be considered serendipitous. A rare but welcome confluence of gameplay with historical accuracy, bordering on the random.

Indeed, that's why I prefer Europa Universalis, a much more "real" game.

And a good example of why realism shouldn't be prized highly, at least for those seeking to make accessible, commercially successful games.

But at the heart of it all is this: Why call it a "catapult" unit if it isn't intended to act like a catapult?

Because Civ gets a great deal of its accessibility and enjoyability by stealing recognizable historical icons. A lot of people here will argue that SMAC was a better game than most or all of the Civs. They may be right, in the abstract sense, of SMAC's mechanics being offering greater gameplay. But SMAC doesn't engage the way Civ does because it doesn't have the recognition factor of the printing press, Democracy, knights and, yes, catapults.

The catapult "acts like" a catapult in one-and-a-half-ish regards: First, it can bombard units without directly engaging them. Second, it can engage and cause collateral damage (in the unrealistic case of engaging units directly). This is "close enough" for most people to identify with it, I suspect. Hell, Civ I & II's non-bombarding catapults was probably fine for most folks. (Certainly, it never bothered me. I always picture these things as including the necessary support troops.)

Especially when in prior iterations of the game (including Alpha Centauri), such units have worked more like true "artillery" units.

Civ has always boiled down to taking the "fun" over the "accurate". I'm sure somebody has the Sid quote where he says this. The new combat system is deliberately geared toward fewer units; if artillery required escort (like Civ 3's did, for example) this would greatly weaken them, and reduce their value in the game.

Would this be good? Bad? A wash? I dunno. But it seems to me that it was a decision based on lots more gameplay over a greater period of time than any of us individually have had a chance to experience. But if it bugs you, I think you can change it, right?

This is important: the assertion isn't just that it is silly to have "artillery" units attack, it is that it is silly to have them do that when prior versions of the game correctly moved beyond that concept, to a more "real" concept. Which gets to the underlying point of making new versions of an older game, which is to improve it, make it better.

In order to make your point, you have to keep going back to the assertion that more realism makes a better game, that changing something to make it more realistic is a "step forward" and--regardless of the gameplay implications--moving away from that is inherently bad.

Obviously, there's an element of taste there, but there are plenty of examples where less realism has made for a better game. (Civ is one of those examples, where immortal leadership, the leader's near omnipotence and omniscience, and a zillion other moderately to wildly unrealistc things have improved gameplay.)

And while this game isn't "real," it does attempt to simulate some "real" things, which is why they call the unit "catapult" instead of "suicide squad for knocking hit points off of defenders and maybe winning the battle outright guys."

If the public could identify with the SSFKHPOODAMWTBOG unit, Firaxis would incorporate it in a heartbeat, no doubt. I'm not trying to exonerate the usage entirely, mind you: The flipside of using history for giving your game some oomph, is that you run the risk of disappointing players who expect history to play out as it did.

I would say the one weakness of the current iteration, as I have experienced it, is that it has fewer moments where ir really synchs with my subconscious sense of history and the passage of time. (It moves too fast, I find.) However, the behavior of artillery--or really, any of the units--doesn't figure into this in the least for me.

The whole topic reminds me of The Far Side cartoon where the mosquito comes home from work complaining about his day and cartoonist Gary Larson revealed that he had received lots of mail pointing out that it's the female mosquito that drinks blood, not the male. None of them, apparently, were bothered by the mosquitos living in a house, wearing clothes, and talking. There's such a tremendous lack of detail and such a huge number of outright absurdities in every aspect of Civ, down to its basic premise, it seems comical to address this one as a flaw that's somehow especially significant. That doesn't mean you're wrong, of course, just that you're jousting over something inherently goofy to begin with.

In short, it's not that I object to the concept of a unit that does what the catapults do, but rather that I (and the others who agree) object to putting that function on a unit that is modelled in all other respects to look and behave like a real historical warfare unit that did not do those things, especially when prior versions of the game moved away from that simplistic approach.

And I would argue--and I'm guessing the devteam would agree--it's a move away from tedious micromanagement.

Now, if you look carefully, the only suggestions offered for why this change isn't a "bad" thing are

Perhaps that's because no one can defend it on your terms. I suppose we are to all share your vision of the artillery unit as row after row of catapults/cannons/artillery with just a skeleton crew of untrained mooks to man them. Crews that would be completely unable to subdue a town even if only the tiniest shred of a single batallion, no matter how wounded, still managed to limp along.

That doesn't sound like fun to me, nor does it seem very realistic. Maybe, instead of expecting other people to defend what they like, you should explain why your choice would make the game more enjoyable. Or, better still, create a mod and invite people to re-experience Civ 4 with your improved combat system.

In fact, the more I think about it, the better this idea sounds. Debate isn't really useful here because game theory is kind of like a battle plan--it only lasts until you actually start playing. Actually, even if you don't feel like doing it, I imagine someone will, eventually, and perhaps your premise will be borne out.

But hammering on realism because people don't interpret Civ's abstractions the way you do is as futile as, well, arguing on the internet.