Unrealistic Combat: What side are you on?

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Only theoretically of course, and even with the streaky Civ3 RNG highly unlikely.

... As someone who once lost two battleships and four destroyers to sink two caravels in just one game session, I kind of feel skeptical about that. I could be just unlucky though... =).

Anyway, thanks for the info, at least I somewhat understand better (and some of my suspicions confirmed) regarding crazy Civ III combat results. Thanks =).

[Xanthippe]

I have been advising since Civ II that the use of units of standard be replaced by a more abstract system representing armies, fleets, garrisons, of variable size, strength and quality. Technological superiority could be reflected, strength points transferred between armies, etc.

Anyone familiar with EUII or HOI will know what I mean.

It's one of the few suggestions I've made that haven't been adopted in upgrades to III and IV . . .

[SpencerH]

There was lots of discussion that CIV3 did have streaky dice (and I certainly held that view). Given some of the combat results I've seen so far, I'd say its true for CIV IV too.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Tibi - it would look better if you didn't try and claim that logic was on your side after your embarrasingly irrational chess analogy.

You think it would go 'unnoticed' to have to have a game where a single tank can remove an entire backward civ, even if at 0.01% health?

Maybe you guys should go back to your Civ II Howitzers.

It is interesting to watch how people take out certain less fortunate sentences or ideas from ones post and bring it forward as an argument on how obviously they are right and you are wrong. Of course they ignore everything else because 99% of people would react to the attack instead and will cease arguing about the main issue. This happens every time a sensitive problem is discussed

I never said that a 0.01% health tank should beat a full health spearman fortified on a hill in a bunker. My opinion is however that a full health tank or gunship should always kill a spearman or pikeman, no matter how fortified he is. Please don't come with this childish comparison with civ2's howitzers. This world is not only black and white and not everything what Firaxis makes is perfect; if the combat model was perfect they wouldn't change it all the time.

I am sick about this discussion and consequently done with it.

[kimmygibler]

Originally posted by Tiberius
I never said that a 0.01% health tank should beat a full health spearman fortified on a hill in a bunker. My opinion is however that a full health tank or gunship should always kill a spearman or pikeman, no matter how fortified he is.

Ok, then what about if the gunship is at half health? Obviously there should still be some remote chance for the lesser unit to win. I just don't see how a weakened gunship should have a chance to lose, but a full strength gunship should always have a guaranteed win.

[KoBushi]

Your extremist seperation of the 2 options shows you have no grasp of what the complaints are about

It should be a combination of the 2.

[kimmygibler]

Originally posted by KoBushi
Your extremist seperation of the 2 options shows you have no grasp of what the complaints are about

It should be a combination of the 2.

There are endless possibilities for what could be changed. So I listed the two main camps. If you want a combination of the two you are really just saying that the strength of modern units should be greater in some way than in currently is.

[LzPrst]

I don't understand why there is so much *****ing.

wow, i didnt know whining was a bad word...

anyway. i voted banana cause I like bananas.
but seriously, bananas are great! I dont know how many times I've declared war for the sake of a banana.

but I do think that maybe there should be an extra bonus for fighting units that are obsolete.
maybe if 2 epochs or more 25-50% bonus?

[kimmygibler]

What about just changing the graphics and name of the warrior/spearman/swordsman/arher/etc. once someone advances to the modern age. Would that solve everyone's problems? A simple graphical change?

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by kimmygibler


There are endless possibilities for what could be changed. So I listed the two main camps. If you want a combination of the two you are really just saying that the strength of modern units should be greater in some way than in currently is.

Actually, there's no need to go through the endless combinations. There's a bias problem I already pointed out, but let's ignore it for the moment and let's try and demonstrate how the poll can be balanced, shall we?

To use a real-world analogy, in your poll you have to be Democrat all the way or Republican all the way, because you only presented the "two main camps". There is no room for moderation unless you pick banana =)

May I suggest this third option then?

"C: Unit graphics should an extent reflect what a unit is capable of doing, but game balance should not be sacrificed and cold, hard numbers still dictate in the end the combat calculations to determine who wins in combat."

In other words, "I agree on the Democrats on some issues, I agree on the Republicans on other issues". No need to get too specific.

Chances are most would prefer the moderate view of mixing both approaches than going one way all the way. The argument will then be how much precedence one should give to unit graphics and how much one should give to the plain numbers approach. However, that can be a whole other poll altogether =).

Because, frankly, just looking at your poll, there ought to be no more Civ V, there should only be Civilization: The Spreadsheet Version.

After all, if people are just gonna look at the game units as a collection of numbers, why bother making graphisc for them to represent them as horsemen, knights, or tanks? Just have units with strength counters and save us the grief, right?

The point I made at the very beginning of the thread is that there is an inherent attraction to the game (especially among casual gamers) precisely because it uses familiar, real-world objects such as horsemen, knights, and tanks within the game. It adds to the feel of the game and makes it a better experience.

However, just because they're in the game it doesn't mean that it should dictate what would happen in combat automatically. The game also needs balancing, so numbers should still dictate the combat results. Still, you can make the units (to an extent) seem like its real world counter-part. Why is it that cavalry has 2 movement points while infantry has 1? Because, of course, the general perception of the public is that a guy on a horse will move a lot faster than a guy walking on the ground.

And yeah, graphical changes is the "small solution", but it will work. But again, this isn't an option in your poll - it's a middle of the road solution too! =)

People prefer moderation. However, the moderates had better be prepared to get jumped on by the extremists <_<

[Sava]

I don't want combat so simplified that just looking at a picture will determine the winner...

but I don't like how Tanks and Helicopters can be losing to Longbowmen...


So I am forced to choose A.


*** after looking at the results

I AM SHAMED that so many people are choosing B

[kaigun]

The whole combat system is generic ...to see people heatedly times argueing on realism of spear versus tank in a system where a pile of tanks guns etc matches up to another pile then blissfully play a rock scissors stone game till one pile is dead one at a time..................

....................................how can you argue realism in such a bizzarre system?
..................................combat here is just for fun period ***ie Knight is the name of a unit that has a strength of 8 armor a unit with 20** for flavor ...NO WAY its realistic unless for starters you change the basic dynamic of combat ie away from the card game approach ..



bring back the CTP 2 battle system...............

[kimmygibler]

What I meant was if you can't stand tanks losing to longbowmen, the picture is important to you. The odds are the odds. You can see them before you attack. It's not as if the odds are stacked in favour of the longbowman. But some people look at the picture and see a tank and say that could never lose to that single man with a bow and arrow.

On the other hand, some people clearly see a 6 and a 20 (or whatever the numbers are) rather than a tank and longbowman. If you look at it this way, you are not going to be arguing "no way a 6 could ever beat a 20 in real life. It just can't happen, it's impossible." That's why I think if the picture was changed, nobody would have any problems.

[Kc7mxo]

I AM SHAMED that so many people are choosing B

its because the designer of the poll designed it so the majority of the responsdants would fall on his side. It was probably unintentional, but there it is.

Its like someone debating the death penalty and saying either you pick firing squad for everything past pickpocketing, or else we just go with life in prison. Extreme vs moderate choice, 90% of people will pick the moderate choice.

[Kc7mxo]

Originally posted by kimmygibler
What I meant was if you can't stand tanks losing to longbowmen, the picture is important to you. The odds are the odds. You can see them before you attack. It's not as if the odds are stacked in favour of the longbowman. But some people look at the picture and see a tank and say that could never lose to that single man with a bow and arrow.

On the other hand, some people clearly see a 6 and a 20 (or whatever the numbers are) rather than a tank and longbowman. If you look at it this way, you are not going to be arguing "no way a 6 could ever beat a 20 in real life. It just can't happen, it's impossible." That's why I think if the picture was changed, nobody would have any problems.

While I do slightly care that the varety of units in civ4 is abysmal, what I think, anyway, is that the combat system is intentionally designed to slow down warfare and give builder civs more options.

Which is why primitive units are still resonably viable against more modern forces. Judging from some of civ4's values, Great Brittain and the rest of europe would never have been able to conquer vast swathes of the world the way they did. They would have been overwhelmed by the hordes of unupgraded AI units.

I don't agree or paticuarly enjoy this aspect of civ4 and I consider civ2's combat system largely superior. A combination of the old system and this new one would provide a system far superior to both, in my opinion.