Unrealistic Combat: What side are you on?

[kimmygibler]

Obviously there are two schools of thought on this.

A. The picture of the unit should determine who wins. In other words, since a helicopter can fly and a catapult cannot, the helicopter should win every battle without suffering damage.

B. Every unit is simply a strength number plus modifiers. If the numbers dictate that from time to time a tank loses to a longbowman, so be it. The reasoning could be that if the longbowman is holed up in a city, the modern troops would have to leave the tank at some point if they wanted to kill the longbowman. Or some other similar reasoning that we all see posted from time to time.

So what camp are you from?

[Dis]

As I said in the catapult thread, the combat results are not broken. When I right click and hold the mouse over the enemy unit it shows the odds. And those odds are usually dead on. I almost always win when my number is higher than theirs. In fact, I don't think I've ever lost when my number is higher than theirs.

You can conclude combat is perfectly fine. The only argument you can make is post gunpowder units aren't powerful enough vs. pre-gunpowder units. This is easily fixed via the editor. Case Closed. I don't understand why there is so much *****ing. I recommend increasing the strengths of all post-gunpowder units by 50%. Though these numbers may need a little tweaking so they are balanced with each other. The objective is to ensure they are vastly superior to pre-gunpowder units. Increasing them 50% should ensure all the units scale okay. ie rifleman should still be able to defend against tanks etc.

edit: In conclusion, I obviously voted for B.

[Solver]

It's not like gunpowder units are that superior vs. non-gunpowder ones in history. Modern infantry vs. swordsmen, yes. But musketmen vs. swordsmen? Not really that superior. Muskets, for example, have a fire rate of 3 shots per minute. If you miss with that, an archer or a horseman will take you out. If a swordsman closes in, you're screwed. Plus, the power of the gun isn't good enough to always kill an enemy in full armor.

So yes, gunpowder units are superior most of the time, but pre-gunpowder units can defend succesfully agains them.

As for the game, I also don't notice really combat results that conflict with the odds. If my odds are more than 10% in my favor, I generally win, if the odds are more than 20% in my favor, I win.

[ashbery]

I play Paradox games for semi-realism historical stuff , not civ which has never been a seriously historical game.

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by Solver
But musketmen vs. swordsmen? Not really that superior.

That makes it sound like you didn't watch The Last Samurai. I mean, the 'swordsmen' even had Tom Cruise on their side, and they still couldn't win!

Bh

[Kc7mxo]

I think the numbers should reflect a more accurate representation of combat. And returning to Civ2 or smac's system's would be a dramatic improvement over the current or the even worse civ3's system.

I felt the same way about civ3, but this appears to be the direction sid wants to go. Which I guess just means that I much preffered Brian's version of civ than sid's.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Dis
When I right click and hold the mouse over the enemy unit it shows the odds. And those odds are usually dead on. I almost always win when my number is higher than theirs.

And that's the way it should work.

B.

[alva]

For me, the units are an iconic representation of a number, so put me in the 'B' camp.

[Harovan]

B, obviously.

[Zinegata]

Neither. My answer would be closer to A, but not exactly what you propose.

Many in Apolyton would likely prefer B because they are, frankly, hard core strategy gamers. They consciously treat Civilization as a game. They know it's simply a collection of numbers and mechanics and refuse to treat it otherwise. They thus approach the game in a professional manner - there are wrong and right approaches to the game based on its mechanics. The pretty graphics and unit representations don't mean a thing, and thus should not be hindrances to playing with the most effective strategy (i.e. the dreaded ICS).

I admit, in many ways I'm a hardcore strategy gamer as well. However, I also recognize that hard-core gamers are a minority. Most Civ players are casual players who aren't looking for a challenge or trying to figure out the best strategy. They're playing the game simply to have fun!

And the best way to have fun in a game is to be engrossed in playing it. You forget you are playing a game and instead feel as though you truly are accomplishing something great. Since Civ is all about the monumental progress of humanity, an engrossed Civilization player truly feels an immense sense of accomplishment when he/she wins the game - and feeling that immense sense of accomplishment is fun!

A casual gamer however, will to a large extent rely on his own experiences to dictate his expectations of the game. When he sees a tank fight a spearman, his real-world experiences will make him expect that the tanks will win. When he sees the tanks lose however, he'll suddenly realize that he's just playing a game. A tank, after all, won't be defeated by spearmen in real life (just ask a regular guy on the street who's never played Civ). The player thus loses his engrossment with the game, along with a good measure of his fun. Worse, the player may become downright annoyed. Annoying players is the worst sin a game can commit!

Does it mean that the unit graphics should purely dictate how combat should go? Of course not! We've got a game to balance too, after all. But the unit graphics should at least reflect their real-world capabilities. Tanks shouldn't be invincible - and I think few people complain when they see tanks lose to riflemen or other gunpowder infantry, or when they suffer a little damage from ancient units.. But they certainly shouldn't be beatable by something so archaic as a spearman or an archer. That's just too far a stretch for the imagination, destroying a player's sense of engrossment.

I'd hate to say this, but Brian Reynolds seemed to understand this when he design Civ II. Subsequent Civ designers seem to have failed to grasp this entirely, seemingly hoping that the player will just "accept" the flukes and "understand" how they had to make those decisions for the sake of "game balance".

[xxFlukexx]

B

The Defender always gets a huge edge in Civ games. That being said I routinely take out equal tech defenses, 6 longbowmen, blah blah dead.

The people that are complaining are playing on freakin' settler and make one tank and are expecting to destroy the whole world with just one unit. Hello, there's a plethora of bonuses so that if you don't plan ahead, you will get killed. If you are not playing on settler then how the mf do you have tanks while the opponent has spearmen?

Btw, a cata can easily kill a chopper, I destroy choppers all the time with a tank in BF2, it's just the same with a catapult, chopper hovers->aim cata->destroy chopper.

There's a small issue with a huge tech gap between catapults and cannons and cavalry isn't effectively countered.

If you want to take a city, you have to bring a varied army and prepare to take losses. In Civ2 and Civ3 I could easily take heavily defended cities with only one type of unit with little to no losses. Cities need to be hard to take because we want the game to last more than 20 minutes.

[Snotty]

I thought it was quite appropriate to have macemen and elephant graphics wailing on my tank graphic. They even managed to take a point or two off of the already injured tank..

The tank rocked when the elephant charged it

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Zinegata
A casual gamer however, will to a large extent rely on his own experiences to dictate his expectations of the game. When he sees a tank fight a spearman, his real-world experiences will make him expect that the tanks will win. When he sees the tanks lose however, he'll suddenly realize that he's just playing a game. A tank, after all, won't be defeated by spearmen in real life (just ask a regular guy on the street who's never played Civ).

Quite some tanks in WWII were lost in tank traps, made with a simple shovel. Should we introduce the evil anti-tank shovelman, just to reflect more historical accuracy? Or can we just agree, that even vastly inferior units even in reality on rare occasions very well can defeat superior ones, and have the infamous spearman represent the man with the shovel?

The player thus loses his engrossment with the game, along with a good measure of his fun. Worse, the player may become downright annoyed. Annoying players is the worst sin a game can commit.

This statement is very true, however who is seriously annoyed over a minor detail like this, would most likely not be a long term player anyway.

But even among us hardcore civers these sometimes irritating combat results take their toll. I am pretty impulsive and choleric and if I see a unit lose, the victory of which I counted on as certainty, I sometimes curse so loud and profane, that my wife is hearing it through 3 doors and comes to look if all is alright with me. Theseus once said, that on such an occasion he spit a mouthful of whiskey over his monitor in surprise. Another one (don't remember who) hit his fist on the table so hard, that he spilled his coffee.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Quite some tanks in WWII were lost in tank traps, made with a simple shovel. Should we introduce the evil anti-tank shovelman, just to reflect more historical accuracy? Or can we just agree, that even vastly inferior units even in reality on rare occasions very well can defeat superior ones, and have the infamous spearman represent the man with the shovel?

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.

Really, ask this simple question to a guy on the street who has never played Civilization: "Who will win in a fight between tanks and spearmen?". Almost assuredly, you'll get the answer of "tanks". If you try and explain how the spearmen won, there is a very good chance the said person will think you're crazy =).

This statement is very true, however who is seriously annoyed over a minor detail like this, would most likely not be a long term player anyway.

Ah, but hard core players evolve out of casual players. Practically all of the hard core players playing here today started by playing a previous version of Civ. Annoying casual players to the point that they quit is not the best way to gain more long term players =).

Besides, even a more "casual" game can be enjoyed by hard core players, whereas the reverse is not true. It's in Firaxis' best interest to draw in the casual crowd - and I think that pretty graphics alone eventually isn't going to cut it.

But even among us hardcore civers these sometimes irritating combat results take their toll. I am pretty impulsive and choleric and if I see a unit lose, the victory of which I counted on as certainty, I sometimes curse so loud and profane, that my wife is hearing it through 3 doors and comes to look if all is alright with me. Theseus once said, that on such an occasion he spit a mouthful of whiskey over his monitor in surprise. Another one (don't remember who) hit his fist on the table so hard, that he spilled his coffee.

... I rest my case. At least you didn't end up eventually boycotting Civ III like I did though =).

[SpencerH]

As Solver pointed out early gunpowder units (i.e. musket) were not more lethal than their non-gunpowder (i.e. longbow or crossbow) counterparts. The same is true for cav. I have no doubt that an equal number of knights would make mincemeat out of Napoleanic Hussars in a straight fight.

OTOH, improvements/changes such as rifled barrels, machine guns, tanks, APC's, and gunships etc make modern units a thousand fold more lethal and it is impossible for me to forget that (nor am I willing to pretend that a knight is armed with modern weapons- if it is then it has to have been upgraded). I dont mind losing an occasional modern unit but when I consistently lose gunships to knights, or tanks and mech inf to grenadiers because the combat odds are even its too much to ignore.

I choose a modified A.

EDIT: after re-reading the choices I dont know what I choose.