Announcement

**Amniotic** · November 8, 2005, 04:22

Well, in the meantime while you wait for an appropriate mod (or construct your own) you could beat down the city defense bonus with artillery or bombers... It's not a fix, but at least you won't lose a half dozen expensive modern units.

**Melboz99** · November 8, 2005, 06:09

Last night I was playing on Chieftan, and my Knight still got his ass kicked by a Spearman in open terrain.

Knight = 6
Spearman = 2

Even if you factor in the +50% def against Mounted Units, that still leaves the Spearman with 3.

What's worse is that I only managed to knock the spearman down by <1 HP.

Eventually I gave up after some horseman, archers, and a couple Longbowman started taking my cities which were defended with Pikeman and Musketmen.

And this was on Cheiftan for Pete's sake!

Dan O.

**trickey** · November 8, 2005, 07:17

Hmph, I've found Civ 4's combat to be right in line with the odds given when a unit attacks another unit.

I hope you folks are remembering to calculate any terrain advantages, as they can make a big difference. Also, attacking across a river gives the defender a 25% bonus to defence IIRC, so try and avoid that.

**Stuie** · November 8, 2005, 07:47

Re: Anybody else find combat a little unrealistic?

Originally posted by Rybeck
My first tank unit (from a city with a barracks) rumbles up to his city and attacks - this city is defended by 2 longbowmen and a pikeman. Should be a cakewalk, I thought...

Not if you didn't bring any artillery with you.

**Freddz** · November 8, 2005, 08:09

Re: Anybody else find combat a little unrealistic?

Originally posted by Rybeck
I tried a few more times. I finally managed to take the city after losing FIVE tanks, 2 infantry and 1 gunship to a bunch of archers and pikemen - he had no more than 5 such units in the city.

Comon, maybe they had armor-piecing arrows? And what if you were too cocky driving those tanks into the city and underestimated them?
Haven't you ever watched McGyver?

**Freddz** · November 8, 2005, 08:11

Originally posted by Melboz99
Even if you factor in the +50% def against Mounted Units, that still leaves the Spearman with 3.

As I remember it spearman and pikeman gets +100% against mounted units.

**Volstag** · November 8, 2005, 10:20

It's not a combat simulator. Just because there's a picture of an archer, doesn't mean it's modelling the "real" capabilities of an archer. It's the strength number of a game piece versus the strength number of an opposing game piece. Just because one has the picture of a tank, and the other has a picture of cossack doesn't mean anything to the underlying calculations.... as you well know.

Do y'all really think the game is calculating shell penetrations, rates of fire, morale, formations, ammo levels, command & control, logistics, weather, etc?

I recommend the Combat Mission series, TacOps4, Steel Beasts II, etc, if you're looking for more realistic combat -or- mod the game so that any technologically advanced unit instantly vaporizes inferior units. That'll be fun.

**Sparo** · November 8, 2005, 10:21

This is by no means a direct attack on your situation, but I've read quite a few posts where people are astonished when (modern unit) loses to (inferior unit) and I don't think they should be so nonplussed.

Take longbowman vs tank. You're probably looking at 28 vs 6, but that 6 quickly jumps due to the longbow's innate city defense ability, plus fortfication bonus, plus culture bonus. You might need to triple that value, which makes your chances much less favourable.

Ok but that isn't realistic you say. I'll give that a shot.

While it's tough to compare a game who's expressed design purpose is to provide balance with "real-world" units, you can still imagine that a longbowman in an city could inflict losses. You can't call the rag-tag terrorists in Iraq an 'army'...they are using primitive tools to attack the most advanced and best trained soldiers in the world. Nonetheless they've killed 2000 Americans, many from armoured units. You don't need to kill tanks to stop armoured forces.

Your luck was bad, no doubt.
Suspend your disbelief and imagine that it isn't just math at work in Civ 4. Either that or bring artillery and watch defenders melt away.

Also, I think that Spearmen have defence 4, doubled to 8 vs your Knight. You are likely to lose painfully.

**Freddz** · November 8, 2005, 10:40

Hmmm.... Many people are rightfully angry of the loss of fully healed modern units against ancient/medieval units. They feel they pretend to play a development of mankind and it takes away from the realism when it happens. To argue that it is only game pieces and that it should be viewed only as that I believe is going a bit too far in the "it's only a game and realism have nothing whatsoever to do with the fun" direction.

To take another view of this:
It is a problem very easily solved by Firaxis. Very, very easily.
The question is: do we want it solved or not? Do we want a better solution? Or is this solution the best, that fortified experienced longbowmen in culturally good cities have a shot against tanks.
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.
It would hasten the defeat of already technologically beaten nations in war, true, but for me that sounds more fun, and more realistic.

**Ravenloff** · November 8, 2005, 11:16

Tech Ratio

A few years ago, after Call To Power came out, I sat down with a like-minded and equally frustrated friend about this subject. CtP had the same problems. I particularly remember a stack of armor and mech inf getting toasted by defending musketeers.

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.

I still think this is the way to go. You don't get absolute dominance as a more advanced unit, due to the randomizer, but you still enjoy an innate bonus versus far less technological enemies.

You could even add a further layer to this which would be some sort of built-in logic for matchups between certain types of units. For instance, take the example of the gunship vs. pikemen. In this case, the gunship would not take any damage at all...due to the inability of pikemen to throw that high, I suppose...but the pikemen would be able to take damage. Now, they may not be actually destroyed due to the randomizer, but there is absolutely no way, using this extra layer, that the gunship would take damage against a unit unable to strike back.

**felder** · November 8, 2005, 12:51

my tank kills the first archer but suffers minimal damage. The next turn it attacks again and is KILLED by a longbowman. Ah... my eyes deceive me, that surely didn't happen. I try again...

A fresh tank unit arrives and attacks the same city. This time it gets defeated/killed straight away.

Part of the problem is you're thinking a bit too "real world" here. They aren't tanks and longbowmen, they are game pieces on a board. It's annoying when your "tank" loses to a "longbowman", but look at the numbers. Fortified units get a defensive bonus...the city imparts a defensive bonus, maybe the unit had some promotions as well. With all the bonuses stacked, the base power score can go up considerably.

Tank = 28
Longbowman = 6

For starters Longbowmen get +25% city defense bonus. That makes them a 7 or 8. Add another 25% for fortification...making them 9 or 10. Let's say they have 1 city garrison promotion...that'll make them an 11 or 12. I'd expect the tank to lose around 30% of the time now. Add in the city defense bonus...let's say 100% making them around a 20. At this point I'd expect the tank to lose around 40% of the time.

Not exactly a coin toss, but it's certainly not crazy that 2 tanks could lose to two longbowmen in this situation.

Ok now I'm mad. My gunship unit arrives. This one gets killed by a pikeman. Now I don't care how difficult it is to take cities in CIV 4, this is RIDICULOUS. There isn't a one in a million chance that medieval units can defeat modern day units. Heck if I were using musketeers or even grenadiers I wouldn't mind so much... but tanks and helicopters??

Gunship = 20
Pikeman = 6

Right off the bat I'd expect the Gunship to lose around 25% of the time. Lets say the pikeman was fortified...that's +25% making it a 7 or an 8. Let's say it has 1 city garrison promotion...that's another point or two.

Now we're at Gunship = 20, pikeman = 9 or 10. Now the gunship will lose a third of the time. Add in city bonuses...say 100% and now the Gunship and pikeman will be on or close to equal footing.

The fact that you're even using a gunship to attack the city at all instead of using it to attack tanks or other armored units is an indication you aren't using the unit correctly.

Did you bring any artillery with you at all? Had you done that and bombarded the city defenses to 0 and then bombarded the units your tanks would be rolling right over them.

Last night I was playing on Chieftan, and my Knight still got his ass kicked by a Spearman in open terrain.

Knight = 6
Spearman = 2

Even if you factor in the +50% def against Mounted Units, that still leaves the Spearman with 3.

Ok. Here we go again. Spearmen have an attack of 4 with 100% bonus vs. mounted units not 2 with 50% bonus. Knights have an attack of 10. So that becomes Knight = 10, Spearman = 8. Not that crazy now is it? If the spearman was in defensive terrain and/or had promotions, it may have actually been more powerful than your knight.

Remember...this is a game...they are game pieces...they aren't real people. Sometimes I wish firaxis would replace unit graphics with numbers so people would quit complaining. Learn to play the game, and use the right units for the right job. Don't attack fortified units in cities without artillery...don't attack spearmen with mounted units.

**Steelsmith** · November 8, 2005, 13:05

Remember also that there are lots of modifiers in the game. If you just march a tank up to your enemy's populous capital city and attack, then I would expect the tank to lose, even if outdated units are defending the city. You have to soften the city up first with bombardment. If you're using tanks, then surely you have bombers and at least cannons? Decimate the city's defenses first, and taking it will be much easier.

**felder** · November 8, 2005, 13:10

First of all it's not all that realistic to be attacking spearmen with tanks anyway...granted there may be a few very poor parts of the world where this may occur, but it's not the typical case. If you are routinely attacking spearmen with tanks, quit being such a wuss and up the difficulty level a bit.

Personally I like the fact that weaker opponents at least get a fighting chance. I mean, come on. If you've got tanks and they've got spearmen, you're going to win no matter what anyway. If you don't win, you deserve to lose and get a Dan Quale leader rating.

If you really really enjoy moving your few tanks through waves of spearmen and having them get vaporized, just mod the game. Altering the unit strengths is pretty trivial. In my opinion that takes all the challenge, strategy, and hence all the fun out of it. Might was well load it up on settler, pop open the world editor, and have at it.

Originally posted by Freddz
Hmmm.... Many people are rightfully angry of the loss of fully healed modern units against ancient/medieval units. They feel they pretend to play a development of mankind and it takes away from the realism when it happens. To argue that it is only game pieces and that it should be viewed only as that I believe is going a bit too far in the "it's only a game and realism have nothing whatsoever to do with the fun" direction.

To take another view of this:
It is a problem very easily solved by Firaxis. Very, very easily.
The question is: do we want it solved or not? Do we want a better solution? Or is this solution the best, that fortified experienced longbowmen in culturally good cities have a shot against tanks.
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.
It would hasten the defeat of already technologically beaten nations in war, true, but for me that sounds more fun, and more realistic.

**Freddz** · November 8, 2005, 14:50

Ok, let's start this little debate.

Originally posted by felder
First of all it's not all that realistic to be attacking spearmen with tanks anyway...granted there may be a few very poor parts of the world where this may occur, but it's not the typical case.

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.
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. 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.

If you are routinely attacking spearmen with tanks, quit being such a wuss and up the difficulty level a bit.

I agree in raising difficulty. But my view and your view aren't the only view here. And my view is that an already beaten civ is already a beaten civ. Remember, these changes makes a strong computer A.I. more able to run over weaker opponents as well.
Yes, some people like to play easy and get some realism in combat anyway. So I would say your argument is relatively irrelevant and points more towards on how you like to lay out your arguments. I will try to answer in kind, though somewhat gentler.

Personally I like the fact that weaker opponents at least get a fighting chance. I mean, come on. If you've got tanks and they've got spearmen, you're going to win no matter what anyway.

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

If you don't win, you deserve to lose and get a Dan Quale leader rating.

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.

If you really really enjoy moving your few tanks through waves of spearmen and having them get vaporized, just mod the game.

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 Apolyton. They are generally very unconstructive. Some of them by people who I thought were actually pretty smart. Before, that is.

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

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.

Altering the unit strengths is pretty trivial. In my opinion that takes all the challenge, strategy, and hence all the fun out of it. Might was well load it up on settler, pop open the world editor, and have at it.

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 to keep it the way it is - to not 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.

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

Announcement

Anybody else find combat a little unrealistic?

Anybody else find combat a little unrealistic?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment