Unrealistic Combat: What side are you on?

[Aro]

"B" all the way.

Actually, I like it. A spearman defeating a tank is not so usual, folks.. It's very amusing...

Btw, I'm not a hard core strategy player... But I'm having a lot of fun with Civ IV

[Grumbold]

I think it would be solved if there was a forced change of units and graphics when you hit the gunpowder era. Warriors could become 'mob', spearmen could become 'militia', longbowmen could become 'civil defense' etc. None of their numbers would change, but the mental chasm of a bunch of tanks lining up on the battlefield opposing a bunch of guys with long pointy sticks would be gone. Modern soldiers lose men and equipment to guys with home made fertilizer explosives and petrol bombs all the time.

The reason they don't do this as standard is that it adds extra graphical effort and complexity for little real gain.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by NanoDingo
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.

No it is not equivalent. Better odds does not mean always win. It means better odds. Where did you learn that nonsense?

And a tank has much better odds against a spearman than, say, a horseman, a knight or even a cavalry. So how would you back up your claim, that technical advance does not matter?

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
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?

You can't lose a single fight to vastly inferior troops, no. If that's all the enemy has to work with, why prolong things? Why introduce the need for more than one unit, when the victory is already effortless?

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.

Actually, cavalry units did morph into chopper based. 'Air cavalry', as it were.

Bh

[NanoDingo]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph No it is not equivalent. Better odds does not mean always win. It means better odds. Where did you learn that nonsense?

Statistical analysis; 0.999... equals 1. A unit of a higher Tech should have higher odds of success, by your own admission; therefore, a unit of a hugely higher Tech should have hugely higher odds, so much so that it is not unreasonable to simulate it as always winning, especially when that's what people expect.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by NanoDingo
Statistical analysis; 0.999... equals 1. A unit of a higher Tech should have higher odds of success, by your own admission; therefore, a unit of a hugely higher Tech should have hugely higher odds, so much so that it is not unreasonable to simulate it as always winning, especially when that's what people expect.

You mean the term "hugely higher odds" and the number "0.999..." are synonyms?

Numbers like 0.75, 0.95, 0.99 or 0.999 do not exist in your opinion?

"A unit of a hugely higher Tech should have hugely higher odds - hence 0.999... - hence 1"?

Disarming logic. I think on this base I can rest my case.

[NanoDingo]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph You mean the term "hugely higher odds" and the number "0.999..." are synonyms?

When it's a Tank versus a Spear-Man, yes, I think it's reasonable.

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Numbers like 0.75, 0.95, 0.99 or 0.999 do not exist in your opinion?

They're intermediate values - perfectly acceptable for the odds between, say, a Level 2 Tech Unit and a Level 5 Tech unit, but not for the odds between a Level 2 Tech Unit and a Level 15 Tech Unit; odds can only go to so many decimals before it becomes silly.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Bhruic
You can't lose a single fight to vastly inferior troops, no. If that's all the enemy has to work with, why prolong things? Why introduce the need for more than one unit, when the victory is already effortless?

If you want to play such a game, more power to you. You know what to do, if not, ask in the Creation forum.

I don't.

Actually, cavalry units did morph into chopper based. 'Air cavalry', as it were.

Bh

Cavalry units were the "punch" of former armies, perhaps up to WWI. They were mainly used to break through a defense in a short, decisive strike. Their role was taken over by tanks in WWII. Helicopters did not exist yet at this time. The occasional cavalry unit in WWII was more of an anachronism than anything else.

EDIT: And before some smartass complains, yes I know, there was some sort of tank in WWI also, even though it does not quite compare. Things change seldom abruptly.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by NanoDingo
They're intermediate values - perfectly acceptable for the odds between, say, a Level 2 Tech Unit and a Level 5 Tech unit, but not for the odds between a Level 2 Tech Unit and a Level 15 Tech Unit; odds can only go to so many decimals before it becomes silly.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, even though it is not a proof of what you stated earlier.

It looks like others differ in that matter. Thank God the developers do too.

[NanoDingo]

Thank God the Developers made the game customisable.
-

[Harovan]

That is a thing we can agree to.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

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.

Well I guess that supports our position, at least mine anyway. In my first game where I actually built gunships I didnt think to look at the details of what bonuses etc it had. I was busy trying to figure out new gameplay issues such as religion, culture, etc. I suspect that a totally new player will think in a similar way.

I think firaxis dropped the ball with respect to the possibility of anti-tank and anti-air promotions once certain techs were discovered.

[Harovan]

Well I think the discussion went more in the direction "certain win" vs "better odds", so I don't know if that supports your position, since upping the odds of one unit moderately (as I proposed) still does not make it invincible.

I will gladly agree with you however, that some units very well can and should be tweaked.

[Caligula 37 AD]

This is my first post in Apolyton. Been lurking around for a week, an bought the game some four days ago. Love it so far, and has lost a tank to an archer.

However the game's timespan is some 6.000 years, right? Don't tell me that an osolete unit hasn't beaten a vastly superior unit in that time. If it happens once every game, I'm not shaken. I'm with "B".

Plus, it's just the math of the game.

(This post is mainly to test the account, so please ignore its lack of content.)

[Cort Haus]

Are folks proposing that they would like to play a game where a rival Civ with inferior technology ought to be able to be removed from the game with a single superior unit?

If so, I wonder if they have thought through the implications of this.