Anybody else find combat a little unrealistic?

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by archermoo
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?

Ok, sorry, but I just noticed this and... well, I must say that this is an exaggeration to the extreme. The vast majority of Vietcong units were armed with rifles (somewhere like 99%). In fact, I highly doubt they were even using arrows since Vietnam doesn't exactly have a history of archery practice. Though the bow was invented in the East, most Oriental nations, save Japan, have always preferred the crossbow.

In fact, this whole incident seems to be a myth that has been spawned by a certain, historically inaccurate satire called "Apocalypse Now".

Also, the technological difference between America and Vietnam was not very significant. The Vietcong were well-supplied with modern equipment by other communist nations. The only major advantage the American had in technology was airpower - but the Vietcong's ability to contest this steadily improved since they were provided with good anti-aircraft equipment, such as the portable SAM.

However, although the American technological edge was only minimal, the United States inflicted sixty times more casualties, even though it was always outnumbered throughout the war! Vietnam is not the best example to show how "primitive" troops (and the Vietnamese certainly weren't primitive!) can beat more technologically advanced ones. Rather, it's an example how a weak nation managed to win in spite of its military defeats!

In fact, conflicts after Vietnam showed just how decisive technology can be in war. In the first Gulf War, American tanks slaughtered Iraqi ones, achieving a kill-death ratio of somewhere in the region of 3000+ to 0! And this is a battle between Modern Armor and Tanks. What more if the battle is between Modern Armor and spearmen? -_-

And here's another reason why Firaxis is better off revamping the combat system: It'll obviate the need for certain Civ players to make the most outlandish and unbelievable of claims just to justify in-game results that should never have happened in the first place. It, frankly, is making the community look dumb. And isn't it ironic that a strategy game is making its players look dumb? -_-;;;

[KoBushi]

This thread isn't about people complaining because they don't want to siege cities and take time to win combat, It's about the game being unbalanced drasticaly in favor of the defender. Even if you reduce city defences to 0, Most defense units still get masive defense bonuses... PLUS if they're built with a barracks, they usually have further city defense bonus... you can't cure those bonuses with a catapult, cannon, or artillary. And unless you bombarded with a frigate/destroyer/etc, the best you can do is sacrafice several siege units to HOPE to get some collateral damage.

It's far easier to just sit back, allow the computer to thrash themself's against your walls, and fortified hill-top units, and not even try to go to war. Hell the best thing to use war for is an oppertunity to pillage thier improvements for money and avoid combat... it's vastly more effective.

It's a little ridiculous how EASY defence is and how HARD attacking is. (Yes even at higher difficaulty levels)

Even ignoring specific incidences of Tanks vs Spearmen, Defenders STILL have an unfair advantage now that spies and siege equipment are underpowered. It seems that one needs a good 6 or 7 units just to siege a city with 2 defenders. (Maybe 4 or 5 if you use a frigate/etc to bombard instead of having to sacrifice catapaults time after time in near futility.)

And that ruins the fun of combat. The computer sends of squad of 6 over, big deal; just get 3 defense units and thier plans are ruined.

The combat system is unbalanced drastically in favor of the defender.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Zinegata


Ok, sorry, but I just noticed this and... well, I must say that this is an exaggeration to the extreme. The vast majority of Vietcong units were armed with rifles (somewhere like 99%). In fact, I highly doubt they were even using arrows since Vietnam doesn't exactly have a history of archery practice. Though the bow was invented in the East, most Oriental nations, save Japan, have always preferred the crossbow.

In fact, this whole incident seems to be a myth that has been spawned by a certain, historically inaccurate satire called "Apocalypse Now".

Also, the technological difference between America and Vietnam was not very significant. The Vietcong were well-supplied with modern equipment by other communist nations. The only major advantage the American had in technology was airpower - but the Vietcong's ability to contest this steadily improved since they were provided with good anti-aircraft equipment, such as the portable SAM.

However, although the American technological edge was only minimal, the United States inflicted sixty times more casualties, even though it was always outnumbered throughout the war! Vietnam is not the best example to show how "primitive" troops (and the Vietnamese certainly weren't primitive!) can beat more technologically advanced ones. Rather, it's an example how a weak nation managed to win in spite of its military defeats!

In fact, conflicts after Vietnam showed just how decisive technology can be in war. In the first Gulf War, American tanks slaughtered Iraqi ones, achieving a kill-death ratio of somewhere in the region of 3000+ to 0! And this is a battle between Modern Armor and Tanks. What more if the battle is between Modern Armor and spearmen? -_-

And here's another reason why Firaxis is better off revamping the combat system: It'll obviate the need for certain Civ players to make the most outlandish and unbelievable of claims just to justify in-game results that should never have happened in the first place. It, frankly, is making the community look dumb. And isn't it ironic that a strategy game is making its players look dumb? -_-;;;

My only disagreements are minor.

I believe the montegnards were known to use bows and although I cant remember where I read it (so it may be a fictious memory) I recall that at least one green beret was reported to be wounded or killed by an arrow.

I cant think of any effective man-portable SAM for use against jets in use during the vietnam war. Even today's versions aren't terribly effective.

[ChaotikVisions]

Originally posted by Zinegata


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?

If all you people really hate your pretty modern units getting killed when you misuse them there is a fix. Give all your modern units +1000% bonuses versus the old era units. Then even when your modern armor is down to 10 after taking out three cities without having to bother using artillery to knock defense out or Mechanized Infantry to defend, you can still win any fight you encounter.

As for the artillery its just more visual complaints, the artillery is moving close enough to bombard units inside the city and is coming under fire when it does it. Since this happened in real wars does it qualify to stay in? The other route is for bombarding from afar which as Civ3 showed is very exploitable. Damaging units with no chance of return damage=unbalanced game. I thought you wanted balance?

In any case I don't want my game based on the "public image" of what war is, I want a balanced game. And yeah, it is bad to demand they rework the entire combat system because you want them to visually represent your idea of war better. I don't get all this complaining, this is the best combat system in a Civ-esque game yet. The only one that even comes close is MoM.

[archermoo]

Originally posted by Zinegata


Ok, sorry, but I just noticed this and... well, I must say that this is an exaggeration to the extreme. The vast majority of Vietcong units were armed with rifles (somewhere like 99%). In fact, I highly doubt they were even using arrows since Vietnam doesn't exactly have a history of archery practice. Though the bow was invented in the East, most Oriental nations, save Japan, have always preferred the crossbow.

Not at all true. Mongolia and Korea both have a long history of using composite recurve bows that is alive and well today. Granted one of the places that the crossbow was invented was China and they used it extensively, but most of their neighbors continued using the bow.

Originally posted by Zinegata In fact, this whole incident seems to be a myth that has been spawned by a certain, historically inaccurate satire called "Apocalypse Now".

Actually my intel on this comes from a couple of teachers I had while growing up who fought in Vietnam, and who got to deal with fighting an enemy that used both modern and primative weapons. Having to search for both tripwires and pits filled with punji sticks.

Originally posted by Zinegata
Also, the technological difference between America and Vietnam was not very significant. The Vietcong were well-supplied with modern equipment by other communist nations. The only major advantage the American had in technology was airpower - but the Vietcong's ability to contest this steadily improved since they were provided with good anti-aircraft equipment, such as the portable SAM.

However, although the American technological edge was only minimal, the United States inflicted sixty times more casualties, even though it was always outnumbered throughout the war! Vietnam is not the best example to show how "primitive" troops (and the Vietnamese certainly weren't primitive!) can beat more technologically advanced ones. Rather, it's an example how a weak nation managed to win in spite of its military defeats!

In fact, conflicts after Vietnam showed just how decisive technology can be in war. In the first Gulf War, American tanks slaughtered Iraqi ones, achieving a kill-death ratio of somewhere in the region of 3000+ to 0! And this is a battle between Modern Armor and Tanks. What more if the battle is between Modern Armor and spearmen? -_-

And here's another reason why Firaxis is better off revamping the combat system: It'll obviate the need for certain Civ players to make the most outlandish and unbelievable of claims just to justify in-game results that should never have happened in the first place. It, frankly, is making the community look dumb. And isn't it ironic that a strategy game is making its players look dumb? -_-;;;

I'll point out I never used the word "primative", you did. What I said was an enemy that used both low and higher tech weaponry. Which they did.

I also never said that lower tech units beating higher tech units was a common occurance, or even likely. Just that it is possible. And that it becomes more and more possible if the higher tech side underestimates the capabilities of their lower tech foe. In Vietnam we assumed that we'd just be able to roll over them, and ended up being proven wrong. In GWI we took our enemy more seriously and so our tech advantage prevailed.

Same thing in Civ. If you don't bother using good tactics you give weaker units the opportunity to prevail against you. The only time I've lost a high tech unit to a low tech unit was when I didn't sufficiently bombard a city before rolling in my MechI and had one unit killed by a Rifleman. With proper bombardment I didn't lose another unit in the war, even though the straight odds (comparing raw power vs. power of units) I should've lost about 1/3 of my force.

As I've said before, there are many ways of taking out a unit of tanks that have nothing to do with breaching their armour. I'm not saying that a low tech unit taking out a high tech unit is likely, I'm just saying it is possible. Just as in the game it isn't likely, just possible. The worse upset I've had was a Rifleman taking out a MechI, and that was because of bad tactics on my part.

While I'll admit these kind of arguements makes some of the members of the comunity look dumb, I'd disagree as to which parts.

[willgamer]

The griping on this subject will never end....

So how about some brainstorming for solutions?

Here's mine:

How about if there exists a 2 or greater difference in Era's, then the ancient unit is disallowed from killing the last strength point of the modern unit. The modern unit will always win, but at a variable cost. Couple this with disallowing any unit to attack if its strength falls below some minimum, say 2 points or 33%, whichever is greater.

There it is; what's your idea?

[SpencerH]

This is a difference of styles. The best answer is SMAC 2005. No one 'knows' that inf with lasers should always lose to phase cannons.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by archermoo
Not at all true. Mongolia and Korea both have a long history of using composite recurve bows that is alive and well today. Granted one of the places that the crossbow was invented was China and they used it extensively, but most of their neighbors continued using the bow.

*shrugs* Still doesn't change the fact that the country in question, Vietname, doesn't have long traditions of archery.

Although I will say you're right - Mongolians especially are among the best archers in the world and I keep forgetting they're technically part of the Orient =).

Actually my intel on this comes from a couple of teachers I had while growing up who fought in Vietnam, and who got to deal with fighting an enemy that used both modern and primative weapons. Having to search for both tripwires and pits filled with punji sticks.

Punji sticks are different from helicopters being shot at by arrows. The Vietnamese were not dumb enough to shoot arrows at helicopters. You got caught and are thus changing the subject =P.

And saying helicopters in Vietnam regularly got shot at by arrows is at worse dumb and at best watching too much Apolcalypse Now =P

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions


If all you people really hate your pretty modern units getting killed when you misuse them there is a fix. Give all your modern units +1000% bonuses versus the old era units. Then even when your modern armor is down to 10 after taking out three cities without having to bother using artillery to knock defense out or Mechanized Infantry to defend, you can still win any fight you encounter.

...

The only one that even comes close is MoM.

Very brief answers now. Gotta go to work =).

I don't hate exactly hate modern units getting killed by ancient ones. Annoyed is more like it =).

What annoys me even mroe however, is people who say it is not possible to have both quasi-realistic combat AND excellent game balance. Previous Civs have done it, why not newer ones?

Also... you say you want game balance but cite the combat system of Master of Magic? o_O

[garetjaxusmc]

Originally posted by SpencerH




My only disagreements are minor.

I believe the montegnards were known to use bows and although I cant remember where I read it (so it may be a fictious memory) I recall that at least one green beret was reported to be wounded or killed by an arrow.

I cant think of any effective man-portable SAM for use against jets in use during the vietnam war. Even today's versions aren't terribly effective.

The Montagnards were on the American side to start out with because the Vietnamese persecuted their religious beliefs.

[garetjaxusmc]

Originally posted by willgamer
The griping on this subject will never end....

So how about some brainstorming for solutions?

Here's mine:

How about if there exists a 2 or greater difference in Era's, then the ancient unit is disallowed from killing the last strength point of the modern unit. The modern unit will always win, but at a variable cost. Couple this with disallowing any unit to attack if its strength falls below some minimum, say 2 points or 33%, whichever is greater.

There it is; what's your idea?

Good idea- at least have it possible that the ancient units can cause SOME damage... the poor private will have to have some painting to do when he gets back to the rear...

Now what if you had one lone tank sitting at 1 point of strength and the enemy still had hordes upon hordes of ancient units trying to take it out? (Render un-usable, at least). If that modern unit is going to be taken out, at least have a tremendous cost in men for doing so.

[archermoo]

Originally posted by Zinegata


*shrugs* Still doesn't change the fact that the country in question, Vietname, doesn't have long traditions of archery.

Although I will say you're right - Mongolians especially are among the best archers in the world and I keep forgetting they're technically part of the Orient =).

You don't need to have a long history of culturally using the bow to use them when that is what you have available. The US doesn't have a long tradition of archery, but I know quite a few archers that are Americans. And while archery in ancient Vietnam isn't something that I've studied particularly, most of the cultures in that part of the world used the bow. According to some quick google searches I've done, some of the earliest weapons found in Vietnam were bronze arrows. Certainly not an unknown weapon to them.

And not only is Mongolia part of the Orient, so is Korea and they have just as long a history with archery. If not a longer history.

Originally posted by Zinegata Punji sticks are different from helicopters being shot at by arrows. The Vietnamese were not dumb enough to shoot arrows at helicopters. You got caught and are thus changing the subject =P.

And saying helicopters in Vietnam regularly got shot at by arrows is at worse dumb and at best watching too much Apolcalypse Now =P

I guess I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't changing the topic. The reports I got of helos being shot at by archers were from teachers of mine who fought in Vietnam. They also had stories of having to deal with modern explosive booby-traps as well as shallow pits filled with punji sticks and other more "primative" traps.

And shooting at a helo (especially a Vietnam era one) with a bow isn't a futile effort. They can be very sensitive machines, and are in some ways very easy to damage. If a piece of tire rubber getting sucked into the engine of a Concorde during takeoff can kill 113 people, just think what an arrow or two could do to the engine of a helo. Not that it is easily done, or that a negative outcome is likely, but that it is possible.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by garetjaxusmc


The Montagnards were on the American side to start out with because the Vietnamese persecuted their religious beliefs.

Yes, the montagnards as a group generally fought with the americans. That doesnt contradict what I wrote.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by archermoo
You don't need to have a long history of culturally using the bow to use them when that is what you have available. The US doesn't have a long tradition of archery, but I know quite a few archers that are Americans. And while archery in ancient Vietnam isn't something that I've studied particularly, most of the cultures in that part of the world used the bow. According to some quick google searches I've done, some of the earliest weapons found in Vietnam were bronze arrows. Certainly not an unknown weapon to them.

And not only is Mongolia part of the Orient, so is Korea and they have just as long a history with archery. If not a longer history.

No you don't, but when you have Ak-47s in large numbers, why bother using a longbow? I've heard of arrow booby traps and decoy rockets used in Vietnam. But longbows? And against helicopters? This is frankly something out of Apocalypse Now!

I guess I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't changing the topic. The reports I got of helos being shot at by archers were from teachers of mine who fought in Vietnam. They also had stories of having to deal with modern explosive booby-traps as well as shallow pits filled with punji sticks and other more "primative" traps.

And shooting at a helo (especially a Vietnam era one) with a bow isn't a futile effort. They can be very sensitive machines, and are in some ways very easy to damage. If a piece of tire rubber getting sucked into the engine of a Concorde during takeoff can kill 113 people, just think what an arrow or two could do to the engine of a helo. Not that it is easily done, or that a negative outcome is likely, but that it is possible.

I think you may have misheard from your teachers then (besides which, portable SAMs are sometimes code-named as "arrows"). The Vietcong employed plenty of booby traps, and they were effective against infantry. They weren't crazy or stupid enough to use arrows on helicopters however. Why use an arrow when you have AK-47 rifles in large numbers?

Besides, just the downdraft from the helicopter's main rotor is going to blow away arrows before it even gets close =P.

Firing arrows in the vain hope it gets sucked into the helicopter's engine exhaust (like what happened to the Concorde) is just plain silly. Helicopters rarely suffer from this problem anyway since their engines generally don't suck in air at the same rate as a jet engine does. Debris (commonly birds like pigeons) going into engines is a problem for many jet aircraft, but not for helicopters.

The Vietcong knew this and thus weren't stupid enough to try and fire arrows at helicopters. They had rifles. Rifles can sometimes punch through a helo's armor and thus shoot it down. Saying they fired arrows in the vain hope of the arrow getting sucked into the engine exhaust (assuming it got pass the downdraft in the first place) is even sillier than the Rambo explanations we sometimes get -_-

[TheWalrus]

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.

There is a historical basis for the argument that riflemen are vunerable to such attacks, but not any unit carrying any sort of automatic arms such as a machine gunner or a tank.

The British didn't have the numbers to combat the Zulus. Yes they had rifles but a couple of hundred rifleman is eventually going to be worn down and destroyed by a foe using even ancient or medieval weapons. Thats what happened at Isandlwana.

In a cIV game the Battle of Isandlwana can be compared to two English rifleman units versus a half dozen Zulu spearman, longbowman and knights. One spearman unit lures away one rifleman unit and the rest of the Zulu units attack the rifleman. Lots of Zulus die, but the rifleman is destroyed.

Longbowman/Knights etc should therefore have a theoretical chance to destroy a Rifleman unit. Its been historically proven.

This all changed when Gatling invented the machine gun at the close of the American civil war. He foolishly believed at first that it would mean less men had to fight and die on the battlefield - but of course he was wrong.

When the British brought two Gatling machine guns along to the next battle against the Zulus the same number of men wiped out thousands of Zulu warriors in open battle effectively ending the Zulu nation as a entity in a matter of hours. Think a cIV machine gun unit versus a half dozen Zulu spearman, longbowman and knights.

European nations then used Gatling's gun to conquer the African hinterland (they had never had the numbers to penetrate inland before), which far from a barbarian land was civilised in much the same way as South America prior to the Spanish invasion.

With a handful of men and there new machine guns, the Europeans conquered Africa in a matter of decades.

The Americans used Gatling's new gun to wipe out what remained of native resistance.

You can therefore argue that anything from machine gunner up should give medieval and ancient units next to no chance based on established historical facts.

PS Don't count the Ethiopian defeat of the Italians in 1895 as an ancient army defeating a modern one. The Ethipian leader, Menelik had very wisely spent much of the previous four years building up a supply of modern weapons and ammunition.