Anybody else find combat a little unrealistic?

[Kc7mxo]

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?

right because the AI always upgrades all his units and I never knock out his access to unit critical resources.

In my last game, where I might add there was only ONE war where more than one city changed hands in the entire game and >I< started it, the AI I invaded had access to infantry, rifleman, artillery, and catapults. My only unit advantage was my Armor.

And yet I spent half the war wiping out longbowmen, pikeman, musketmen, catapults, knights, yadda yadda yadda. And yes, sometimes my infantry, tanks, and such lost to those guys. In open field it was rare, but within the cities the casualties were much more significant due to the large city defense bonus.

While I often moved artillery up to bombard the city, if I did that with EVERY city, I'd spend 100 years fighting one war. Which is really. really. really. boring. I spend too much time slapping the enter button and watching my tech bar inch across the screen as it IS in civ 4. Doesn't anyone else have this problem?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
I spend too much time slapping the enter button and watching my tech bar inch across the screen as it IS in civ 4. Doesn't anyone else have this problem?

Yes

[archermoo]

[SIZE=1]
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.

Yup. Just like if you asked any British citizen (or soldier even) prior to 1879 what chance spear wielding natives would have against trained British troops with rifles, they'd have said none at all. At least before Isandlwana.

[CrONoS]

Interesting, I never heard of this before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana

See ya,

Originally posted by archermoo
Yup. Just like if you asked any British citizen (or soldier even) prior to 1879 what chance spear wielding natives would have against trained British troops with rifles, they'd have said none at all. At least before Isandlwana.

[garetjaxusmc]

Originally posted by cronos_qc
Interesting, I never heard of this before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana

See ya,

This was the story for a GREAT movie... I think it was called "Zulu". Not bad at all... but not on much anymore.



To jump back to the thread at hand- I've got the feeling that this kind of problem will always and forever be a hallmark of Civ games, but only as long as people see it as a problem. I for one would prefer that the units 'upgraded' with time- not so much in strength, but in name and look. Evidently their strength is just fine, they are taking down units that would normally hammer a tremendous amount of firepower down upon them.

I have to say, suspension of disbelief IS destroyed when it gets to seeing a gunship wasted by a catapult or pikeman. Granted, I've used the units in combat, they've lost a lot of strength, and yet even after I check the combat odds, I'm still willing to risk them in battle. It's not so much the fact that they are destroyed... it's just that I'd rather see them destroyed by say... an 'insurgent' unit as opposed to a catapult or archer. Even if it is just a generic unit that is representative of urban guerillas... it's just the peace of mind that they have access to more powerful weapons than just a bow and arrow scratching paint on a tank.

I used to be of the mindset that every now and then a "Rambo" unit got out there and just kicked some @ss, but after seeing these incidents a few times, I think it'd be better for other civilizations' un-upgraded units to 'age' into something more appropriate for the age.

[archermoo]

Originally posted by garetjaxusmc


This was the story for a GREAT movie... I think it was called "Zulu". Not bad at all... but not on much anymore.

Zulu Dawn actually. Zulu was the story of the battle of Rorke's Drift, which the Brits won. Both great flicks.

Originally posted by garetjaxusmc To jump back to the thread at hand- I've got the feeling that this kind of problem will always and forever be a hallmark of Civ games, but only as long as people see it as a problem. I for one would prefer that the units 'upgraded' with time- not so much in strength, but in name and look. Evidently their strength is just fine, they are taking down units that would normally hammer a tremendous amount of firepower down upon them.

I have to say, suspension of disbelief IS destroyed when it gets to seeing a gunship wasted by a catapult or pikeman. Granted, I've used the units in combat, they've lost a lot of strength, and yet even after I check the combat odds, I'm still willing to risk them in battle. It's not so much the fact that they are destroyed... it's just that I'd rather see them destroyed by say... an 'insurgent' unit as opposed to a catapult or archer. Even if it is just a generic unit that is representative of urban guerillas... it's just the peace of mind that they have access to more powerful weapons than just a bow and arrow scratching paint on a tank.

I used to be of the mindset that every now and then a "Rambo" unit got out there and just kicked some @ss, but after seeing these incidents a few times, I think it'd be better for other civilizations' un-upgraded units to 'age' into something more appropriate for the age.

Well, even though there are many ways of disabling a tank unit that have nothing to do with breaching the armour of the tanks, I can still understand it being disconcerting to have a unit called "Longbowmen" take out a unit called "Tanks". Personally, I'm more concerned with checking out the odds of the fight rather than the names of the units, but I can certainly understand the point you make and wouldn't object to the names being changed as tech advanced, even if the unit itself wasn't upgraded.

I'll also point out that it wasn't uncommon for helos in Vietnam to have arrows shot at them. A great example of a high tech army attacking an army with mixed low and higher tech weaponry at their disposal. Who won that one again?

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by 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.

Mathematically (from what I've seen in your excellent thread on the combat system), a tank does indeed has about a 99.9999% chance of winning over a spearman. However, I also recall calculating the odds in Civ III, where elite, full-strength, battleships had an over 99% chance of winning against a regular caravel. Given the number of times I saw caravels triumph over battleships however, I have to say that a caravel's chances of winning are a heck of a lot higher than less than 1%!

In other words, just because the "official" calculations say that it shouldn't happen very often, it doesn't mean the actual results will be the same. I've always had the feeling that Civ III's "dice" were loaded to favor the underdog, which skewed the results badly. And having loaded dice is bad quality control at best -_-.

If Civ IV's dice are equally loaded, then this is a pretty major oversight that compromises the existing combat system. Given that there have been some cases already of modern armor dying to longbowmen, I'm beginning to worry that the Civ IV "dice" are the same ones used for Civ III, and hence will produce more ****ey results that the official calculations would indicate. "Loaded dice" are unacceptable from both a realistic and game balance standpoint.

As to point 2, yes, terrain should have a significant effect on a unit's capability to defend itself. I think this is a great improvement along with unit promotions. However, good terrain placement should still not be a replacement for adequate technological advancement.

If longbowmen with adequate defensive bonuses will, in all aspects, equal the capability of a rifleman, then there is something very wrong with the game balance. A rifleman is exponentially more expensive thanks to all the turns and beakers spent on research. Thus, it should nonetheless retain some form of advantage even in a difficult situation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but assuming a unit's effective combat strength becomes 10 due to terrain bonuses, then it acts in exactly the same way as a unit whose strength started off as 10, correct? Thus, a very inexpensive ancient unit (thanks to its low tech cost) is the exact equal of a far more expensive rifleman. This, in effect, removes the "firepower" advantage of the more modern unit, and making combat a very Civ I affair where ancient units had a surprisingly decent shot at killing more modern enemies. Was it really that necessary to nerf modern units for the sake of "game balance"? -_-;;;

Of course, you can argue that you can use artillery to reduce the defense improvements, but that has also been coming under flak for its somewhat haphazard implementation. I hate to say this, but Firaxis seems to be relying more and more on players to just "accept" what is happening in-game, using "game balance" as an excuse. They seem to ignore that what they're showing in the game will make little sense to an ordinary man on the street who doesn't play Civ. -_-

Anyway, my point is that it is important for the game to "make sense". Really, would people complain if spearmen cannot kill tanks in Civilization? People who complain than their tanks are killed by spearment keep coming back because they have a legitimate argument. People who complain that spearmen should kill tanks would probably be dismissed as crazy.

It is to the credit of the team that made Civilization II that they recognized its importance and took steps to resolve this issue. It is to the discredit of the Civ III team that they persisted in abandoning this milestone. Civ IV right now seems to be in the middle. I can thus only hope that they finally abandon the approach they took with Civ III and reinstate the milestone of Civ II in their next incarnation of Civ.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by archermoo
Yup. Just like if you asked any British citizen (or soldier even) prior to 1879 what chance spear wielding natives would have against trained British troops with rifles, they'd have said none at all. At least before Isandlwana.

Excellent historical tidbit, but unfortunately your example is an exception rather than the rule. Exceptions do not define how the public, as a whole, views a certain subject ^_^.

In other words, sure, the Zulus won at Isandlwana. However, if you asked a man on the street who he thinks will win in a fight between riflemen and spearmen, the man will still say the riflemen. That's the public first perception. When you say the spearmen won, only then will the "exceptions" kick in.

This in fact is why the debate on his subject is on "Anti-tank spearmen" and not "spearmen killing riflemen". There is a fairly large number of exceptions wherein modern riflemen were defeated by primitive troops. Thus, when players see a rifleman die to a spearman, their mind reminds them of one of these exceptions and they shrug it off as one of those cases.

However, in the case of tanks vs spearmen (or archers), there are really no "exceptions" that one can conjure to justify how it happened. Sure, Rambo did it, but didn't he have modern explosive arrows? And besides, isn't he just some character in a movie anyway, and one where he's just a bad ass that can mow all of his enemies down without a sweat?

When you decide to use a real-world object in the game - a tank, for example, you had better make sure that it operates in a fashion that is consistent with how the public (and the ordinary guy in the street) perceives it. Civ II did this quite well with its armor unit - Armor was fast-moving (3 movement) and heavily armored (30 hitpoint), something that matches the public perception. It also opened the way to blitz tactics, another common public perception.

Now, compare that to making artillery "charge" an enemy city. The public perception is that artillery stays far behind and blows the enemy to bits. Now you're asking them to swallow that they actually charged the enemy to inflict damage? o_O

It might be good game balance, but to a casual observer, it will be just plain weird.

One can only hope that the next Civ can minimize these "weird" elements. I truly and firmly believe that you can make the world more believable while not compromising game balance. To constantly sacrifice the consistency of the game (compared to the real world) for the sake of "game balance" is, frankly, sounding more and more like an excuse that may some day come to haunt the franchise.

[ProfessorPhobos]

Speaking of unrealistic, catapults are a bit more useful against armies in the field than they were in reality.

Wrecking city defense, sure. Causing massive casualties? Not really...

Artillery, definitely- god of war, but catapults...not so much.

[ChaotikVisions]

So how about a generic upgrade for each era that keeps the same stats but changes picture? Units would automatically upgrade to these as their types became obsolete, but still keep their path in the upgrade chain. This way those players who view things purely visually can't complain and those who realize its just a matter of stats and balance won't have to listen to it.

Medieval Era:Peasant Levies
Reinasence(bad sp, I know) Era:Men-At-Arms
Industrial Era:Militia Men
Modern Era:National Guard/Guerilla

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
So how about a generic upgrade for each era that keeps the same stats but changes picture? Units would automatically upgrade to these as their types became obsolete, but still keep their path in the upgrade chain. This way those players who view things purely visually can't complain and those who realize its just a matter of stats and balance won't have to listen to it.

Medieval Era:Peasant Levies
Reinasence(bad sp, I know) Era:Men-At-Arms
Industrial Era:Militia Men
Modern Era:National Guard/Guerilla

I actually suggested this as well. Doing this will greatly improve the suspension of disbelief in the game when a modern unit fights and ancient unit and loses. However, I think this is just the "small solution".

Because ask yourself this: Is this really good game balance? The answer is no. It rewards mediocre performance by allowing Civs who greatly lag at technology to have a fighting chance. Note that a slight tech advantage shouldn't kill you - riflemen should only have a slight advantage over musketmen, for example, but the gulf between modern armor and spearmen is far too large to give the spearman any sort of chance at winning (damaging, maybe. Killing a healthy one? Heck no).

The real problem is that in their quest for game balance, they have sacrificed realism. The real solution, therefore, is to improve game balance without sacrificing realism.

[ChaotikVisions]

Riflemen have a considerable advantage over Musketmen in Civ4, 14 to 9. Thats enough to win most combats without trouble. Really what this thread seems to be about is people who don't feel like knocking down city defenses and don't like damaged units not fighting at full strength. Ignoring both these things will cause you to lose units to oudated ones, but thats part of combat.

I've been playing a more aggressive strategy in my current game and have been waging war just fine because I keep my advances supported with artillery and don't just throw my units at a city until it falls. Given that aside from huge maps AI civs won't have tons of cities it doesn't take 100 years to move artillery with your units. Really the thing that takes the longest in war for me isn't the actual fighting or the positioning, its waiting for the city to be pacified.

What is being argued against is the need for combined arms and a return to the day where the highest attack unit trumped all. Having played Civ4 I really don't want to go back.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions What is being argued against is the need for combined arms and a return to the day where the highest attack unit trumped all. Having played Civ4 I really don't want to go back.

Oh, you misunderstand - I love combined arms and wouldn't want units with the higher attack to triumph all the time.

What I object to is giving ancient units a chance against modern units. A spearman, no matter how souped up, should not stand a chance against modern armor. From a game balance standpoint, it's fair - modern armor costs exponentially more than a spearman in terms of shields, turns, and beakers spent. Not to mention it is also more realistic in the public eye and hence won't destroy suspension of disbelief.

What I also object to is the somewhat... unconventional way in which combined arms was implemented, at least where artillery is concerned. Sure, the rest of the system works great, but artillery charging the enemy just isn't how the public thinks artillery should be employed. Civ III and Alpha Centauri, whose artillery fires safely from a square or two away, fits more with the public image of bombarding enemies from afar. Having artillery function in that manner would preserve suspension of disbelief, although in the case of Civ IV this would have been unbalancing (though personally, I would have addressed those imbalances in other ways. If artillery became so powerful bombarding, for example, why not weaken its attack or make it far more expensive?).

Is it really so bad to demand that Firaxis give us a game that is both balanced and does not come up with ****ey results? Some will disagree, but I think they've already done it twice before Civ III. Shouldn't they have stuck to those lofty standards rather than almost turning "game balance" into an excuse?

[Cochonou]

People who complain that spearmen should kill tanks would probably be dismissed as crazy.

But they could argue than in many modern days battles, these spearmen would have been given armor piercing rockets by a competiting faction.

From a gameplay perpective, I support you though.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by Cochonou


But they could argue than in many modern days battles, these spearmen would have been given armor piercing rockets by a competiting faction.

From a gameplay perpective, I support you though.

I think that someone who argues that in any forum outside of Civilization would indeed fall under the category of "crazy" ^_^.

Thanks for the support also! =)