Anybody else find combat a little unrealistic?

[Freddz]

Re: Tech Ratio

Originally posted by Ravenloff
Anyway, what we came up with was a "tech ratio" that was a measure of the tech required for, say, a modern armor unit and that which is required for, say, the above-mentioned archer. I do not remember the actual formula we came up with, but basically, there was a calculation for the ratio between the two tech levels with a slight randomizer put in. This calculation was made BEFORE the combat strengths (att/def, in that case) were figured in. The tech ratio gave an added layer of realism we felt was missing in just an arbitrary strength value like we have with CIV IV. In our model, if you lost the tech ratio computation, you were assigned a large penalty when the combat strength roll was made.

Sound great.

[King Thor]

In general I've had a good experience with the combat system. Apart from 2 gunships getting knocked out by a stupid elephant unit. I'm guessing that is because the gunships were already a bit weakened from previous attacks, and that elephants have a bonus versus mounted units which is what a gunship is to the game engine.

Although I do think that a gunship should not be getting knocked out by an elephant unit almost every single time, it should happen once in a while. If your chopper is at low health (ie. beat up) then mechanical failures do happen. Choppers go down without people shooting at them.

In general the combat system in Civ4 is better than CTP. When I was playing CTP I thought of the same thing that a previous post mentions. Have a technology level attribute for each unit. in Civ4 it would be equivalent to each time you upgrade the unit to the next level.. and the difference in technology levels would cause a doubling of strength for the higher technology unit.

say the there is a 1 level difference in technology, then the unit with higher technology gets 100% bonus in strength. and a 2 level difference in technology gives a 200% bonus in strenght.. and so on.

It wouldn't end the whole "elephant took out my gunship" but it would make it far less likely.

[felder]

Yes, the most undeveloped civs could get to be this way in a game, just like in the real world. I agree. But your point seems to be that this is an argument inyour favour of sorts though you're admitting that this could happen. It was more likely 30-60 years ago than now though.

My point is that people concentrate too much on what they feel is realistic. If it bothers someone that technologically advanced units lose to less technologically advanced ones because it is not realistic, one would think the same player would question the realism of the match ups at all.

I said it was possible for this to happen, it not particularly realistic. In the same sense, it's also possible for a spearman to dig a hole and trap the tank, or for a gunship to crash into the city walls while attacking a pikeman. Is it likely, no. It's a game...it's not real life.

Further, some people like to play a weaker world, we're one is dominant and they get a kick out of that. I'm not gonna stop them. But you are, I see.

If you're saying I'm trying to deny people the ability to play the way they want to, couldn't I say you're trying to deny me the ability to play the way I want to? What a ridiculous argument.

My own point was really that if a civ has fallen behind badly for whatever the reason, there is no reason this should be punished badly. You could be that civ which has fallen behind, and then you are short work. Anyway, conquering such a civ should go fast, as it LACKS any challange and fun.

I never said I would stop people from dominating in a weaker world. If you have spearmen and the computer has tanks, it will make short work of you. Why? Because the AI will bring artillery, bombard your city, and then mow down your defenders. It will go quite quickly. The reverse is also true. Bring mixed arms with you and the spearmen civ will likely lose a city a turn. The game encourages you to build a mixed force in order to succeed in combat. I believe this to be a good thing and makes for more interesting game play.

First so say you like the weaker opponents to have a chance, then you say you will win no matter what anyway against weaker opponents. So, with your arguments there is no challange anyway, right? So why not quicken a combat sequence that lacks the challange that you agree it lacks.

The game punishes you, if you choose to use poor tactics. You should win no matter what if you're advanced enough to have tanks vs. spearmen. You will win quickly if you use mixed arms. You most likely will still win if you build nothing but tanks...it'll take longer, but you'll win. I don't see a problem with that.

It heightens realism. And helicopter's don't get killed by pikemen.

Helicopters don't fight pikemen, the fact that they do in this game lowers realism. My point is that helicopters losing to pikemen is really no more or less realistic than helicopters fighting pikemen to begin with. The difference is that players get pissed by one situation and not the other. People don't seem to complain when the reverse happens...that is the computer loses a helicopter to the player's pikeman.

Ok, I get it. You're just one of those people who are ticked of by people criticising a game. You feel that they are ungrateful to get such a great game.

Wow...ticked off...no. You have no idea how I feel. It's obvious that people's complaints about certain units losing to other units stem from the fact that they don't know how the game works. For example look at the Knight Vs. Spearman comment above. They thought it was 6 vs 3...when it was actually 10 vs 8. I don't feel they are ungreatful, I feel that they are uninformed in that they don't know how the game works.

I have to say it.
I'm just wondering throughout your arguments if you are really saying all this BS in a response particularly aimed at me, and my arguments, or if you're making a general statement of your own opinions, or if you're still talking to the thread-starter. You really seem quite confused, no matter what. As you had my quote, (though last in your post), I must assume you have directed it at me.
Normally, I would ignore a response like this. But I'm getting tired by the hordes of these responses that are produced in apo. Some of them by people who I thought were actually pretty smart. Before, that is.

What "BS" in my comment to you was not directed in some way to the quoted text?

And the comment that "YOU" should mod the game is the general no brain comment on how to solve issues these days. Actually, don't you think the people that have complaints or suggestions on how they would like to improve a game should actually program a new game instead?

I fail see how telling people to mod the game is a no brain comment. Civilization 4 was designed from the ground up to allow the player to make it exactly the game they want it to be. Firaxis shipped one version of the game that they thought was the best balance of challenge and fun. If the player doesn't like it, sure they can complain...they are also free to make changes. It takes only a momment to modify the files to alter the unit stengths. In fact, the beauty of it is the player can do it...post the mod and everyone who wants a similar experience can download it.

In your world, THAT seems more fair. That way, we wouldn't be in here and mention flaws that you seem so upset about exist.

Fair? In my world if I have been given the power to easily change something I don't like, I do it. It has nothing to do with fairness. Sure you can appeal to Firaxis to change it, but spearmen have been beating tanks throughout the history of civilization (the game). It's unlikely they will change that. This time around you can end the cycle by easily making the change yourself.

But I'm sure someone will mod this, unless Firaxis does something about it. I won't, I will post my views on things here in the hope that someone interested will mod it, or that Firaxis will change it, as I feel it's an easy change to do if they feel they like to make it.

Um ok...what's the problem then?

Well, you have already said it is no challange wading through spearmen with lots of tanks, so I fail to see how it would be soo much more challanging, especially through your perspective, to alter the unit strenghts.

Now I get it, I think you want to have a fighting chance with your spearmen against those tanks when playing settler difficulty. You actually mentioned there in the start that there could be civs that were severely underdeveloped... That would much more explain why you posted your arguments.

Mmmm...what was that about BS again?

Actually, for the record, I didn't mention altering the unit strenght really, but that's all right. It's ok.

Really? I guess you were just blowing smoke when you said:

My own answer is that I really can't see how it would be unbalancing to boost the +% of modern units against medieval and ancient ones to correct this. I.e. boost units say +50% when they are 2-3 ages more advanced.

[LordShiva]

This whole argument is SOO two days ago... or is it two games ago?

[Apocalypse Cow]

I just get angry when the numbers don't work properly(read: I have cruddy luck). I have problems when 4 of my 10.2 units get beat by a single 4.6 unit.(or whatever) I could care less about the pictures, its the numbers that count.

Remember everyone, check the odds by right-dragging your unit onto the defending unit. The numbers are right there in black and white(or red and white, really)

[KoBushi]

It seems that Civ4 has been made with a lot of the politico type players in mind...

That is to say it FAR favors winning by non-military means, and winning with military is MUCH MUCH harder than otherwise. (At least, that's the feel I'm getting from the game).

I'm not sure why this is, and really I don't like it. Just choosing what techs to get and what to build next isn't as fun as crushing your oponents under foot. But now it takes so much effort long to take cities; that 1: you can lax on your defense (in comprison to previous civs); and 2: By the time your military is marginallysuccesful... it's obsolete by technology you've discovered in the mean-time.

Example: By the time thier Samurai have arrived to demolish your empire... you've already got Musketeers with 10000000 defense bonuses. And thier siege machinery is easily taken out by having the high defence of the musketeers.

Civ 4 is STILL addictive and great fun... but the military might portion is just too un-balanced in favor of the defender imo.

[Freddz]

Okay... for those bored, just let us have some chatting here. You don't have to read it.

Originally posted by felder
My point is that people concentrate too much on what they feel is realistic. If it bothers someone that technologically advanced units lose to less technologically advanced ones because it is not realistic, one would think the same player would question the realism of the match ups at all.

But you said the match-ups could happen(tank/archer). And you were right. As wheras a bunch of phalanxes of pikemen/archers defeating a a few dozen/hundreds of helicopters/tanks.... well... it's not the same thing. That could not happen. This is getting tedious. I feel like I'm nitpicking, and perhaps I am. But there is a huge difference and your comparison is not true.

I said it was possible for this to happen, it not particularly realistic. In the same sense, it's also possible for a spearman to dig a hole and trap the tank, or for a gunship to crash into the city walls while attacking a pikeman. Is it likely, no. It's a game...it's not real life.

To clarify. Yes, SEVERAL spearman could actually on an extremely lucky day perhaps stop ONE tank(esp in a McGyver episode), and ONE gunship could crash against the wall. But that's not what we are talking about.
We're talking of a battallion of these units. Are you saying a battallion of gunships could crash against the wall?
Anyway, it makes your argument a bit silly.
Yes, it is a game, but if we trivialize everything, it's only opinions, and nothing much matter. Not in hobbies anyway. Why are we posting here then? Where do we draw the line on what matters in realism? What matters is when players get ticked off when something happens plus it's not the least bit realistic. Then you know there might be a problem.

To put it in another more sensible way then:
What we are arguing about is how much realism in combat matter to us, as players, and in what way we want that realism displayed in the game. Right? Our opinions obviously differ in this and I doubt that we will have the same opinion when this is over.
I feel that it becomes a bit over the top when longbowmen defeats modern armor like in the example above. It deprives from the fun, because it deprives me TOO much of the realism. You say it doesn't. Our views differ.

If you're saying I'm trying to deny people the ability to play the way they want to, couldn't I say you're trying to deny me the ability to play the way I want to? What a ridiculous argument.

No, but you were on purpose, with your attitude, degrading people who were playing on the lower difficulty levels, as a way to force your argument. It was beside the point IMO. I was just reminding you in a snappy way that there might be other views, and just because they are not yours, they are not neccessarily invalid. They may also be valid even if it is a game and it's about realism we are arguing about.

Bring mixed arms with you and the spearmen civ will likely lose a city a turn. The game encourages you to build a mixed force in order to succeed in combat. I believe this to be a good thing and makes for more interesting game play.

Do one really need a mixed force to quickly defeat spearmen when in the modern age? I mean, I know it's a game and all, but... And is it really much more interesting. It is when fighting decent opposition, I agree there, but...
At some point realism does matter. If Conan the Barbarian takes up an Uzi and splatter the opposition with it, it takes me out of the movie thinking...this is rediculous. This is the same thing - for me and many others. Not that that movie was a good example, but you get the point. Taking the unrealistic too far takes away from the feeling of a game.
Facing unmodern archers with a tank doesn't take me out of the game thinking: "This is really stupid" bacause it can happen, at least 30-50 years ago. And having my own archers losing to a tank doesn't make me feel other than anger at playing badly for being in this goddamn age. I just don't think the strategy will suffer much with my and others suggestions, if at all. It might even improve the game. That's the general idea, anyway.

You should win no matter what if you're advanced enough to have tanks vs. spearmen. You will win quickly if you use mixed arms. You most likely will still win if you build nothing but tanks...it'll take longer, but you'll win. I don't see a problem with that.

Everything should be as exciting and fun as possible, and if it's not, then the less time spent with the boring/unchallanging parts the better. Points of boredom should be removed as much as possible.

Helicopters don't fight pikemen, the fact that they do in this game lowers realism. My point is that helicopters losing to pikemen is really no more or less realistic than helicopters fighting pikemen to begin with.

I don't agree with your point. And just because one thing is somewhat unusual doesn't mean other things has to be.

Wow...ticked off...no. You have no idea how I feel. It's obvious that people's complaints about certain units losing to other units stem from the fact that they don't know how the game works.

Ahh... You were doing pretty good. But this one ruins it. I pretty much knew how you felt. You felt that these dumb people didn't know better and you tried to be degrading just for the heck of it. Anyway, I thought your post was kind of funny that way.

And no, I'm not ticked off, and no, you had no idea how I felt. I just thought I'd write a bit snappier than usual to match your "every gamer that complains about this should raise their difficulty"-post.
I just felt I had seen those kind of posts here, one too many, so I decided to scribble down something.

For example look at the Knight Vs. Spearman comment above. They thought it was 6 vs 3...when it was actually 10 vs 8. I don't feel they are ungreatful, I feel that they are uninformed in that they don't know how the game works.

So condescending because they missed a number. But they do know that a battalion of helicopters shouldn't fall from the sky just by looking at pikemen. And you feel that's okay. They may not know the game, but they do know something of value.
And YES, it is a game! But some things are just way too dumb... (and easy to fix) AND, they DO take some of us out of the game. That's why we are posting.

Sure you can appeal to Firaxis to change it, but spearmen have been beating tanks throughout the history of civilization (the game).

Yes, and it has annoyed people tremendeously throughout the history of civilization.

Really? I guess you were just blowing smoke when you said:

The strenght of the unit would change under some specific circumstances, just like terrain could change the strenght.

Anyway, this is just an excercise of argumentation. I needed it. I was getting rusty.
You go ahead and try to take off my pants in your next post. I need a break, and I feel I have said what I needed to say. I will probably read it (so don't worry).
You just seem so much smarter than the guy that posted that sloppy difficulty level crap up there. And for that I'm glad.

[Freddz]

Originally posted by KoBushi
It seems that Civ4 has been made with a lot of the politico type players in mind...

That is to say it FAR favors winning by non-military means, and winning with military is MUCH MUCH harder than otherwise. (At least, that's the feel I'm getting from the game).

The builder seems to have an edge, at least for the beginner civer. I miss some of the war-excitement in the game. But I feel this is better than it was before, when it was just a war-expansion game basically. But something good could be balanced here I think. No suggestions at the time tho.

[Solver]

The combat definitely gives the defender an edge, yes. However, if you think that the edge is too big you probably haven't played the game enough. It takes some getting used to, but with an appropriate force, you can really take the enemy down and do it somewhat easily. It's just that Civ4 doesn't favor war under all circumstances.

[Zinegata]

... This is really beginning to chip away at my confidence of the Civ IV combat system -_-.

Let's all take a step back for a moment, and think of it this way: If I asked someone who has never played Civ before. and asked him what would happen when a unit of tanks fought an army of spearmen, what would he answer? I think it's pretty obvious - the tanks will massacre the spearmen!.

Tanks slaughtering spearmen is common knowledge. That is how the world at large views this particular match up. Hence, when players see tanks fighting spearmen in a game, they fully expect the tanks to win.

Many argue that you shouldn't think of it as tanks and spearmen since they're really just numbers. Well, if a game constantly reminds you that it is just a game, that's not good game design! The best games are the ones who engross the player to the point that they forget that they are just playing a game. They instead feel as though they're really doing something - and in the case of Civ that is to lead a people to the pinnacle of human achievement.

And really, shouldn't we demand that Firaxis make a less flukey combat system? It was a stated design objective of Civilization II to reduce or eliminate flukey results like spearmen killing tanks or spearmen sinking battleships. The fact that Civilization III abandoned this design milestone, frankly, outraged me to the point I boycotted Civ III (I did play the game for a while though, using a borrowed copy But pay good money for it? Never -_-).

The design team has tried to justify this design decision by saying it promotes game balance, but honestly, how balancing is it for an extremely technologically advanced unit to be beaten, albeit rarely, by an ancient unit? If the computer had been incompetent enough to still be fielding ancient units in an era of tanks, it should not be bailed out by the combat engine - it should be massacred for failing to keep up with the tech race.

Also never forget that a tank is exponentially more costly than an ancient spearman. A tank doesn't just cost more shields than a spearman. What must also be factored is the hundreds of turns and thousands of points of commerce spent to advance the civilization's technology to the point it is capable of building tanks. A tank must therefore have an exponentially higher chance of winning against an ancient unit. A "90%" chance isn't going to cut it.

Note though, that having a somewhat flukey combat system isn't enough cause for most people to not buy a game. I certainly think that Civ IV's combat engine is far less flukey than the Civ III one, so I think I'll enjoy the game when I get it (and I am getting very impatient, which is why I'm posting so much <_<).

However, can we at least stop with all the wacky explanations on how spearmen can beat tanks? Moreover, can't we stop just "accepting" it as fact and demand that they stop it from happening again in the next incarnation of Civ? A portion, perhaps a significant one, of the Civ playing community find tanks being killed by spearmen annoying. We pay Firaxis for games that are fun. We do not pay them for games that annoy us. It would be to their benefit if they finally rid the game of this problem.

[Solver]

However, the actual chance of a tank beating a spearman in Civ4 isn't 90%. It's approximately 99.999999%

Ridicilous results only happen when people do either of the two things:

1) Attack with badly damaged units.
2) Ignore defensive bonuses.


And then you can get away with number 2. If you have a Tank and the enemy has a Logbowman, then even a 300% bonus to the Longbowman won't make it defend succesfully.

[Freddz]

Originally posted by Zinegata
Many argue that you shouldn't think of it as tanks and spearmen since they're really just numbers. Well, if a game constantly reminds you that it is just a game, that's not good game design! The best games are the ones who engross the player to the point that they forget that they are just playing a game. They instead feel as though they're really doing something - and in the case of Civ that is to lead a people to the pinnacle of human achievement.

You're right at the point on how to view gaming. It's an escape, just like movies. And the more fun/realistic escape within the context, the better.

The combat system can easily be bettered in the regard that you mention in your post (except that severely damaged tanks could be defeated by spearmen/archers).
The question is rather: Does Firaxis think it's a good idea to change it? This question might not have an as obvious answer as one might think first.
I do believe that Firaxis will earn on changing it. Being annoyed for not playing well, is much better than being annoyed at stupid things happening.

[Arkalius]

Some things to note...

A unit that has half the modified combat strength as another unit has about a 2% (yes I said 2%) chance of winning the fight if both units start at full health.

A unit with 2/3 of the str as another unit has about a 30% chance of winning a fight (again, assuming both units start with full health).

Two units with the same strength and health have a 50/50 chance of beating each other. However...

If you have a chariot with 4 str, and a maceman with half health who is also at 4 str (half down from normal 8 str), and you ignore any other modifiers, these two units don't have a 50/50 chance of beating each other. The chariot is more likely to win even though the strengths are equal, simply because the maceman is low on health and will take fewer hits to kill than the chariot, and since both units have an equal chance of hitting each other each round, and do equal damage to each other, the maceman is more likely to lose in this situation.

Increasing a unit's first strikes is similar to increasing it's strength by 10% per first strike, though it gives diminishing returns the more a unit gets. However more first strikes increases the expected health remaining after a fight if the unit wins, thus first strikes are a good thing for defenders.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by KoBushi
It seems that Civ4 has been made with a lot of the politico type players in mind...

Yes, it does

That is to say it FAR favors winning by non-military means, and winning with military is MUCH MUCH harder than otherwise. (At least, that's the feel I'm getting from the game).

Me too

I'm not sure why this is, and really I don't like it.

Me neither

Just choosing what techs to get and what to build next isn't as fun as crushing your oponents under foot.

Right again, it isn't

But now it takes so much effort long to take cities; that 1: you can lax on your defense (in comprison to previous civs); and 2: By the time your military is marginallysuccesful... it's obsolete by technology you've discovered in the mean-time.

QFT

Example: By the time thier Samurai have arrived to demolish your empire... you've already got Musketeers with 10000000 defense bonuses. And thier siege machinery is easily taken out by having the high defence of the musketeers.

Yes, this is a problem

Civ 4 is STILL addictive and great fun...

True

but the military might portion is just too un-balanced in favor of the defender imo.

Also true

[felder]

But you said the match-ups could happen(tank/archer). And you were right. As wheras a bunch of phalanxes of pikemen/archers defeating a a few dozen/hundreds of helicopters/tanks.... well... it's not the same thing. That could not happen. This is getting tedious. I feel like I'm nitpicking, and perhaps I am. But there is a huge difference and your comparison is not true.

To clarify. Yes, SEVERAL spearman could actually on an extremely lucky day perhaps stop ONE tank(esp in a McGyver episode), and ONE gunship could crash against the wall. But that's not what we are talking about.
We're talking of a battallion of these units. Are you saying a battallion of gunships could crash against the wall?
Anyway, it makes your argument a bit silly.
Yes, it is a game, but if we trivialize everything, it's only opinions, and nothing much matter. Not in hobbies anyway. Why are we posting here then? Where do we draw the line on what matters in realism? What matters is when players get ticked off when something happens plus it's not the least bit realistic. Then you know there might be a problem.

You disagree, but the realism of a battallion of gunships hitting a wall is about on par with gunships attacking pikemen. Unless the military is going to take on a renaissance fair, it's just not gonna happen.

To put it in another more sensible way then:
What we are arguing about is how much realism in combat matter to us, as players, and in what way we want that realism displayed in the game. Right? Our opinions obviously differ in this and I doubt that we will have the same opinion when this is over.
I feel that it becomes a bit over the top when longbowmen defeats modern armor like in the example above. It deprives from the fun, because it deprives me TOO much of the realism. You say it doesn't. Our views differ.

You're right our opinions differ. Your opinion is that longbowmen couldn't defeat tanks...mine is that a game piece with a stength of 6 with defensive bonuses has a chance of killing a game piece with a strength of 28.

No, but you were on purpose, with your attitude, degrading people who were playing on the lower difficulty levels, as a way to force your argument. It was beside the point IMO. I was just reminding you in a snappy way that there might be other views, and just because they are not yours, they are not neccessarily invalid. They may also be valid even if it is a game and it's about realism we are arguing about.

I'm not intentionally degrading them...more of a light hearted jab actually. I have no problem with people who play on settler...I don't think they are lesser people or anything.

Do one really need a mixed force to quickly defeat spearmen when in the modern age? I mean, I know it's a game and all, but...

In this "game" yep you apparently do.

Everything should be as exciting and fun as possible, and if it's not, then the less time spent with the boring/unchallanging parts the better. Points of boredom should be removed as much as possible.

Precisely. If you are playing on a difficultly level that permits you to have tanks while other people have spearmen, the whole game in unchallenging...what's the point really?

I don't agree with your point. And just because one thing is somewhat unusual doesn't mean other things has to be.

In this case though it does. Combat between a tank and a longbowman in modern warfare IS somewhat unusual. The longbowman winning is just as unusual really because it happens just as often as the match up itself.

Ahh... You were doing pretty good. But this one ruins it. I pretty much knew how you felt. You felt that these dumb people didn't know better and you tried to be degrading just for the heck of it. Anyway, I thought your post was kind of funny that way.

You said dumb, not me. I will say that some of them did not know better, which again is obvious from their posts. You did not know how I felt. If you did, it certainly wasn't indicated in your post.

And no, I'm not ticked off, and no, you had no idea how I felt. I just thought I'd write a bit snappier than usual to match your "every gamer that complains about this should raise their difficulty"-post.
I just felt I had seen those kind of posts here, one too many, so I decided to scribble down something.

Never said you were ticked off...you said I was ticked off. I never tried to tell you, how you felt, you however did try to tell me how I felt. Raising the difficulty level will get rid of the spearmen/tank match up...and hence get rid of the problem.

So condescending because they missed a number. But they do know that a battalion of helicopters shouldn't fall from the sky just by looking at pikemen. And you feel that's okay. They may not know the game, but they do know something of value.
And YES, it is a game! But some things are just way too dumb... (and easy to fix) AND, they DO take some of us out of the game. That's why we are posting.

Actually it was knight vs spearmen guy who missed a number. It wasn't just one number either. He missed the strength of both units and the size of the spearmen's bonus. While you may be able to argue that a tank vs longbowman should be a given, you're not going to be able to argue that a knight vs. spearman should be a given.

Yes, and it has annoyed people tremendeously throughout the history of civilization.

Now you or someone else can easily "fix" it. See, progress!

The strenght of the unit would change under some specific circumstances, just like terrain could change the strenght.

Which can be pretty accurately simulated by bumping up the scores. Start with the base scores and increase each unit's score by a certain percentage based on what era they are in.