Unrealistic Combat: What side are you on?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Zinegata
Sure, I'm aware of a lot of wonderful ways of killing tanks (I know my military history =) ). However, such cases are the exception rather than the rule. A casual player will draw upon a pool of "common knowledge" before thinking of the exceptions. And most casual players aren't even aware of these exceptions in the first place.

As far as I can judge in my short cIV experience, a tank losing to a spearman is also the exception, and may be statistically even farther from the rule as the odds of the evil shovelman.

[SpencerH]

I think Zinegata makes a point.

I think you'll have to admit Ralph, that combat in CIV4 requires much more micromanagement than previous game versions. You cant just attack with a tank and expect it to win against a 'spearman', you have to use an appropriate upgraded tank, check to see the odds, then attack.

The hard core gamers will adjust to CIV4 combat but I wonder if the 'newbies' will just be frustrated. Hell I'm about to lose my third game (second on 'noble') despite learning to micromanage the combat. Previously, I would have already been trying deity.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


As far as I can judge in my short cIV experience, a tank losing to a spearman is also the exception, and may be statistically even farther from the rule as the odds of the evil shovelman.

An exception is probably something in the region of less than 1%. Given the growing number of people complaining about this however, it's starting to look a quite a bit more than just 1% =).

Normally, I'd have confidence in the Civ IV combat system. I've seen the calculations and I know the odds are lopsided for spearmen winning against tanks (less than 1%).

However, in Civ III I had also calculated the odds for how often a regular caravel should be able to sink an elite, full-strength battleship. It was also less than 1%. Given the sheer number of times I saw my battleships sunk by a caravel however, the actual chances for the caravel are more like 10% rather than 1%!

Thus, I'm really not so sure just how good the Civ IV combat system really is anymore. It's fine if it remains a rare occurance. However, I'd argue that spearmen beating tanks shouldn't even be a "rare" occurance. A "nearly impossible" occurance is more like it =).

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I think Zinegata makes a point.

I think you'll have to admit Ralph, that combat in CIV4 requires much more micromanagement than previous game versions. You cant just attack with a tank and expect it to win against a 'spearman', you have to use an appropriate upgraded tank, check to see the odds, then attack.

The hard core gamers will adjust to CIV4 combat but I wonder if the 'newbies' will just be frustrated. Hell I'm about to lose my third game (second on 'noble') despite learning to micromanage the combat. Previously, I would have already been trying deity.

Exactly! ^_^

A tank vs spearman match should already be a no brainer. If you're able to gain such an immense tech lead, it's your right and duty to massacre your enemy. And for the newbie, seeing spearmen get slaughtered by tanks for the first time will most likely be a fun power-trip. Making him watch a tank explode to the dreaded anti-tank spearmen, however, will probably frustrate the hell out of the same player!

Some people (in other threads) have argued harshly that you shouldn't play at such an "easy" level. Well guess what? Casual players are here to have fun.They don't necessarily care about challenges, at least at first. Blasting away primitive spearmen is fun, at least at first. When they tire of it, they'll move up the difficulty ladder on their own and start having fun in a different manner - which is through the satisfaction of beating a competent opponent. It is at this point that they graduate and slowly become hard core gamers. I know this well because this is how I evolved as a player myself =).

Besides, let's assume a hard-core player playing on Deity level somehow managed to gain a massive tech lead. Through hard work and luck (without cheats or exploits) he gained such a tech lead that he already has tanks while the enemy is still using spearmen. Shouldn't he have the right to engage in wanton spearmen slaughter then? After all, he overcame a huge challenge by gaining such a massive tech lead over the computer at the Deity level. It should only be fair that the rest of the game should go much, much, much easier for him.

In other words, it pays to have a game that makes sense. Forcing the players to come up with all sorts of wacky explanations on how spearmen defeated tanks is not good game design!

[Harovan]

Well, obviously I am firmly in the B camp and don't quite follow both of you here.

But what concerns odds I would not hold my breath if I were you. Negative occasions are noted much more than positive ones. Nobody would post a thread "Woot my tank won to a spearman". So if judging by forums alone you will get a pretty much skewed result.

And most players are incredibly inaccurate in their reports. First off, some outright call pikemen spearmen, which already is a difference of 50% strength. Second, defense boni are completely neglected. A fortified pikeman in a hill city with +60% fortification bonus attacked over a river is very well something a 28 strength unit can lose against, at least once per game if you fight a lot of wars, may be even more often.

But the worst of all is, that people forget about the blitz ability of the tank. They attack happily a second time with the same unit (it's been full health at beginning of the turn, right?) and don't even notice, that it got severely pummeled by the rifleman they defeated before and is far from its full strength. Under these circumstances, the tank losing to a fortified pre-gunpowder unit can even become the rule rather than the exception.

I don't think that we should introduce another combat system only because some players do not understand the combined arms approach of cIV and do nothing to soften up defense boni and the strength of defenders. Who thinks, that he can steamroll somebody with tanks alone, like he could in previous versions, should better prepare to bring a lot of them.

[Tiberius]

I'm 100% with Zinegata. Well said

I actually play civ for many years and know the mechanics quite well, yet I refuse to play it "perfectly". I prefer to play it in a way that provides me the most fun. For me, immersion is just as important, or actually more important, than applying the perfect strategy. I will never achieve high scores because when I should attack a civ I try instead to flip their cities. I know this is not the best strategy so I am content with my results. However this makes me understand people who play for the sake of playing a historical simulation (even if an imaginary one) and are disturbed when something "does not fit" the big picture. When you play a "what if I was Ceasar" game (correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the main reason for most of people to play civ) and you develope your civilization to such heights that you can build tanks while the others only pikemen, and yet the pikeman wins against your tank, you naturally ask yourself: "Why have I struggled until now? "
While a unit with a strength of 4 helped by terrain and other modifiers can theoretically beat a unit with a strength of 24, a spearman should never defeat a gunship, no matter what. This ruins the game atmosphere.

I don't mind if my tank loses now and then to a spearman; it annoys me at most. I know that I can win the game with or without a few lost tanks and I know everything about modifiers and strength values and whatnot. But in the moment it happens, it destroys my immersion in the game, and when I lose two I am very close to slap my monitor because for me tanks are tanks and not units with a strength of 28 (or whatever).

Option B can make me smile at most: try to sell a game in which tanks and spearmen are represented by numbers and let me know how many copies can you sell.

[NanoDingo]

This poll is a biased, False Dilemma Fallacy; as Zinegata has eloquently pointed out, one does not necessarily have to agree exclusively with A or exclusively with B.

Oh, and I agree with Zinegata 100%. The game is, by necessity, about numbers but the numbers should reflect reality to a degree that facilitates suspension of belief.
-

[Tiberius]

I just remembered that in my Civ3 PBEM games I had to use a combat calculator to know how much chances I had when I attacked a unit, even when I knew that theoretically (or especially then!) I should win.

Now, how sad is this for a game?

[Harovan]

So you guys believe, that if you have a huge lead in technology it is enough to come with ONE tank to beat any adversary with certainty? It can't lose under no circumstances, right? How boring would that be? The day this will happen, I will leave the franchise and never look back.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
So you guys believe, that if you have a huge lead in technology it is enough to come with ONE tank to beat any adversary with certainty? It can't lose under no circumstances, right? How boring would that be? The day this will happen, I will leave the franchise and never look back.

Not me, but I think it should be much more of a sure thing than it appears to be in CIV4. Should I really have to check if my gunship can beat a knight?

[NanoDingo]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
So you guys believe, that if you have a huge lead in technology it is enough to come with ONE tank to beat any adversary with certainty? It can't lose under no circumstances, right?

A given unit should always win against a unit granted by a hugely inferior Tech, and why is that unreasonable; what's the point in advancing in Tech if it means nothing?

Originally posted by Zinegata
A tank vs spearman match should already be a no brainer. If you're able to gain such an immense tech lead, it's your right and duty to massacre your enemy.

[Harovan]

Advancing does not mean nothing. It still gives you much better odds in combat. You might want to check some numbers before you come with such bold statements.

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
So you guys believe, that if you have a huge lead in technology it is enough to come with ONE tank to beat any adversary with certainty? It can't lose under no circumstances, right? How boring would that be? The day this will happen, I will leave the franchise and never look back.

I'm going to edit your above quote by leaving some words out, and we'll see how it looks then.

"So you guys believe, that if you have a huge lead in technology it is enough to ... beat any adversary with certainty? How boring would that be? The day this will happen, I will leave the franchise and never look back. "

What do you think? Is that still your sentiment? Because if you have a huge lead in technology, it is enough to beat any adversary with certainty. And yes, it's boring. And no, I won't be leaving the franchise.

The problem in my mind is that with close technical parity, there are still relics lying around the field. No Empire that has Infantry should still have any Longbow units lying around. If you can field Tanks, you shouldn't have knights. Unfortunately, that's not the case. I've seen AI empires win the space race, and still have Longbows sitting around in their cities.

So the problem isn't "huge lead in technology", it's "huge lead in fielded units". And about that, I don't know what to do. Hopefully give it more thought and come up with something.

Bh

[NanoDingo]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Advancing does not mean nothing. It still gives you much better odds in combat. You might want to check some numbers before you come with such bold statements.

It clearly doesn't give one much better odds in combat if Tanks can be beaten by Spear-Men - that's the point. "Giving much better odds in combat," is equivalent to saying that a Tank would, in all statistical significance, always beat a Spear-Man. You're arguing against your own case.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Bhruic
I'm going to edit your above quote by leaving some words out, and we'll see how it looks then.

"So you guys believe, that if you have a huge lead in technology it is enough to ... beat any adversary with certainty? How boring would that be? The day this will happen, I will leave the franchise and never look back. "

What do you think? Is that still your sentiment? Because if you have a huge lead in technology, it is enough to beat any adversary with certainty. And yes, it's boring. And no, I won't be leaving the franchise.

No it is not my sentiment. I wrote what I wrote with a reason, the ONE tank phrase included.

If you have a huge lead in technology it certainly is enough to beat any adversary with certainty even now, no matter if a superior unit can lose to an inferior unit on rare occasions or not.

But you still need to be creative if you want to win effectively (i.e. not by sheer numbers). What I am talking about is, that a guaranteed win of a superior unit would make your victory effortless. You can't lose a single fight, right?

The developers and testers did a good job to balance the game in a way, that you can still put up an interesting fight even IF you are technologically inferior, or even IF you lack a resource. Who wants a certain win of modern units, can just adjust their base strength to twice of what it's now and be done with it. It still can lose, but the odds should be astronomically low.

Originally posted by SpencerH
Not me, but I think it should be much more of a sure thing than it appears to be in CIV4. Should I really have to check if my gunship can beat a knight?

Gunships in Civ4 are anti-tank units. This may be unimmersive but it is fact. You should not attack a knight with them in the first place, even though that may sound stupid.

By the way I agree with you on behalf of Gunships being a bit of a clumsy implementation. They should not be successors of cavalry units (that would be tanks). And they are a bit underpowered against other units. It would be better IMO to up their basic strenght by 50% and half their bonus against armored units.