Unrealistic Combat: What side are you on?

[eluciv]

Sure it can be annoying, but I think the folks that are so upset about the lack of a "certain victory" should try to use their imagination a bit more. Perhaps there is more to an engagement than a frantic round of face to face exchanges, be they with a spear or tank rounds (as suggested in the 'evil shovelman' hyposthesis). We can rest assured that more than one "tank of yore" was put out of commission by an "underwhelming" opponent.

A little suspension of disbelief may allow someone to get more enjoyment out of the game - or at least keep their blood pressure down. I've only played the game for a few days and I think it's great - possibly the best Civ yet. Minor annoyances such as losing one "certain" battle in 100 aren't going to weight heavily on my love of the game - or affect the outcome. Relax and enjoy for cripes sake!

[archermoo]

Originally posted by Bhruic


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

Yeah, but that was swordsman vs rifles (with cannon and a gattling gun), not muskets. The swordsmen won the battle earlier in the movie that was vs muskets.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by archermoo


Yeah, but that was swordsman vs rifles (with cannon and a gattling gun), not muskets. The swordsmen won the battle earlier in the movie that was vs muskets.

Actually, the muskets lost to Horse Archers, and mounted Samurai (not quite Swordsmen, maybe more like Knights).

[archermoo]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Actually, the muskets lost to Horse Archers, and mounted Samurai (not quite Swordsmen, maybe more like Knights).

I stand corrected. *bows*

Though I suppose the Samurai unit should in theory best represent them, since that is what they were. Should in fact represent all of them, since bow, sword and spear were standard weapons for Samurai.

[willgamer]

Sorry about the xpost, but:

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?

[tezster]

Originally posted by Bhruic


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

Not entirely accurate

In the movie, ~200 Samurai were up against more than one regiment i.e. at least a thousand infantry. They won against at least the first wave of infantry due to superior tactics, having an entrenched position to fall back on, and the overconfidence of the Japanese forces. In addition, the samurai then broke through the 'musketmen' firing line.

What they lost against was a head-on suicidal attack against howitzers and machine guns.

So, to make a more accurate assessment - it's like a stack 2-3 of uber-experienced Samurai and horse archers beating a similar number of musketmen units (in addition to damaging, but not completely destroying a few more), then subsequently getting killed by Cannons (howitzers) and Infantry (machine guns).

This would be an interesting mod to make I think

[kimmygibler]

Originally posted by Tiberius
It is just not logical that something that annoys some people is kept in, while removing it would go unnoticed.

There will always be a small and vocal minority who are annoyed. But if it were changed so that the results were a certainty and based on the pictures rather than numbers, others would be annoyed.

Originally posted by Tiberius The only answer I can guess is that during the development Firaxis emphasised MP over SP, and in MP weaker units winning sometimes help the beginners, not the other way round. Basically in MP everything would work vice-versa: skilled players would have better techs and armies and wouldn't mind losing a tank now and then, while beginners/casual players would love winning against the odds sometimes.

The same is true for SP as well. Unless you assume that everyone plays SP on easy and always dominates the AI. People would still love winning battles against the odds on SP would they not?

[Zinegata]

Wow, I unleashed a firestorm, and a civilized one at that! ^_^

Let's try to address it point by point, shall we?

Sir Ralph->

On One Tank Wiping Out an Empire

Even if one tank is invincible, one tank alone won't be enough to demolish an enemy Civ. A single tank unit can only be in one place at any given time, so the primitive Civ can still likely hold parts of his empire.

However, if the tank makes contact with any of the primitive civ's armies, then it SHOULD cream them due to their tech lead.

Besides, if you find it becomes boring, you won't leave the franchise. You'll instead bump up the difficulty level so your tanks aren't fighting spearmen anymore =).

If you're saying spearmen vs tank matchups are still common in Prince level or higher however... then there is something definitely wrong with the A.I. already!

Modding

I'll be blunt. Modding has become an excuse.

Really, every time an issue comes up that bothers a fair portion of the community, people tell them to just "mod it in your game".

I reject this approach for a simple reason. Mod-makers are not paid a cent for their hard work. On the other hand, we pay Firaxis 50 bucks for every copy of the game. It is Firaxis' responsibility to fix annoyances like this, not the players!

Besides, realize that most casual gamers did not buy the game so they can mod it. They bought the game so they can play it! Is the game so broken that it has to be modded right out of the box? Of course not! However, does the game contain annoying aspects that should have been dealt with before release? YES! And they should be fixed by Firaxis and not modders!

Really, look at the mods in Civ II. The vast majority of Civ II mods are fundamental changes in the theme of the game. A Civ II mod focuses the game into a particular subject, such as World War 2, the Civil War, Babylon 5, the near Future, and other specialty subjects. Those are real mods.

Tweaking the "main" Civilization game however, is not modding! If the tweaks are being made by just a person or two, it can be dismissed as a personal peeve. If a significant minority of the players are doing this (or would like to do this) however, then it's Firaxis dropping the ball!

Again, modders don't get paid. Firaxis does. It is Firaxis' responsibility to fix fundamental problems with their core games, not the player's!

"Upgrading" Units Automatically to a More "Modern" Counterpart

I've actually suggested this as well - kudos to the guys who suggested this too.

However, I still think this is just the small solution. I firmly believe that one can both retain game balance while making spearmen win over tanks a practical impossibility.

Why? Because I think most people will agree that two Civs ago, we already had both! Civ II already had pretty good game balance and it did not have crazy incidents of spearmen winning over tanks!

Why are we not holding Firaxis to the same high standards?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Zinegata
Sir Ralph->

On One Tank Wiping Out an Empire

Even if one tank is invincible, one tank alone won't be enough to demolish an enemy Civ. A single tank unit can only be in one place at any given time, so the primitive Civ can still likely hold parts of his empire.

Ever heard of razing cities?

Modding

I'll be blunt. Modding has become an excuse.

Really, every time an issue comes up that bothers a fair portion of the community, people tell them to just "mod it in your game".

I reject this approach for a simple reason. Mod-makers are not paid a cent for their hard work. On the other hand, we pay Firaxis 50 bucks for every copy of the game. It is Firaxis' responsibility to fix annoyances like this, not the players!

Besides, realize that most casual gamers did not buy the game so they can mod it. They bought the game so they can play it! Is the game so broken that it has to be modded right out of the box? Of course not! However, does the game contain annoying aspects that should have been dealt with before release? YES! And they should be fixed by Firaxis and not modders!

If I look at the result of this poll, an overwhelming majority is against your stance on that matter. Why should a game cater to a minority? Sure I know, that such a poll is not representative. I don't know the opinion of the majority of casual players. However, you don't either. So why don't we leave it to Firaxis' market strategists?

[Azuarc]

I'm with choice "Z".
(only read first page)

[archermoo]

Originally posted by Zinegata

Besides, realize that most casual gamers did not buy the game so they can mod it. They bought the game so they can play it! Is the game so broken that it has to be modded right out of the box? Of course not! However, does the game contain annoying aspects that should have been dealt with before release? YES! And they should be fixed by Firaxis and not modders!

Just because you and a vocal minority of posters here on Apolyton are annoyed by something doesn't mean that it is something that should have been done differently.

A small number of people who want the game to work differently than it does out of the box is exactly what modding exists for. It seems to me that most people are happy with the combat system as it is.

Just because you find something annoying doesn't mean that everyone else does. And it certainly doesn't mean that Firaxis should cater to your personal preferances.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by kimmygibler
There will always be a small and vocal minority who are annoyed. But if it were changed so that the results were a certainty and based on the pictures rather than numbers, others would be annoyed.

How do you know that? This question refers to your both assertions.

First of all, you don't know how many players feel like this. The votes from here are mostly from hard core civers, who care more about numbers than about game atmosphere. Second, even if we took the results of this poll as granted, more than 10% of the players are annoyed when something like this happens. Have they no rights, especially that what they ask would probably go unnoticed among the other 90% ?
Which leads me to your second assertion: how do you know that? First of all, battles would be still based on numbers, not "pictures", which is stupid. Only the difference between the numbers would be greater and a probabililty of 90% would become 99%. What's wrong with that? Have you ever seen someone complaining that a tank killed a spearman ?! How would this damage the game?

Btw, speaking of combat, I've just lost two axeman attacking undefended, unfortified catapults on grassland. Sure, mathematically this is perfectly possible, since both have a strength value of 5. So, I take two numbers, they are the same, any result should be OK, right? However, somehow I feel that an undefended catapult should be slaughtered by an axeman (or captured). The numbers match, so why do I complain? Well, I do complain because if Firaxis uses some numbers it doesn't necessarily and automatically mean that they are the right one. I have my right to doubt and to trust my own judgment, even if this makes me part of a "small and vocal minority"

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Ever heard of razing cities?

Ah, but a tank can only raze one city at a time =).

Regardless, the point is that modern units ought to be slaughtering ancient units. One can really make a thousand arguments one way or another, but it really all boils down to these two points:

1) Modern units are exponentially more expensive than ancient units, due to their technology cost, so they should be exponentially more powerful and wipe ancient units with ease from a game balance perspective.

2) If you ask a guy on the street who has never played Civ who should win in a fight between tanks and spearmen, chances are they'll say tanks. Why? Because it makes sense. Great games make sense and are balanced as well.

Mediocrity should be improved, not condoned.

If I look at the result of this poll, an overwhelming majority is against your stance on that matter. Why should a game cater to a minority? Sure I know, that such a poll is not representative. I don't know the opinion of the majority of casual players. However, you don't either. So why don't we leave it to Firaxis' market strategists?

And as I said, many, perhaps a majority, in Apolyton are simply hard-core strategy gamers. The results are thus likely to be skewed.

Moreover, the poll itself is highly biased. Option A represents the extremist view that visuals should dictate combat results while ignoring game balance. Option B represents a more moderate view where yes, units are just numbers, but let's come up with a romantic explanation anyway on how it happened. The moderate view will always have greater appeal, no matter how much people like extreme Democrats and extreme Republicans tell us otherwise =).

Yet, in spite of the odds stacked against it, Option A still got over 10% of the vote.

Now, 10% is a minority, I don't deny that (and I don't deny that my view is the minority view). But the question is, just how significant a minority is it?

Well, assuming Civilization IV sells a million copies and the 10% minority holds, then we'd have 100,000 players annoyed with tanks being killed by spearmen. The number 100,000 is nearly double the population of the Civfanatics forum. I don't know how many posters are in Apolyton, but I think it's definitely going to be a LOT smaller than the "minority" of 100,000!

And remember, 10% is a low-end estimate based on your poll. The actual percentage in the poll right now (13 for A and 82 for B) is actually closer to 14%, translating to 140,000 annoyed players and probably more than the population of Civfanatics and Apolyton combined. And that's assuming that Civ IV only sells one million copies - it'll probably sell several times more!

You're damn right we're a minority, but we don't look so small now, do we? ^_^

(And Ralph, I do work in marketing, so I know that annoying even just 10% of your customers is a very big deal! Translate that 100,000 players into sales figures, for example, and you'd have the staggering figure of 5 million dollars - probably more money than either of us makes in a decade =) )

Honestly, many computer game companies don't do enough market research. They often just rely on focus groups (i.e. beta testers) to get feedback. It's often amazingly effective, and Civ deserves praise as a pioneer of this approach. However, it's not always right. I've had my fair share of wrong calls by just relying on focus groups. I think Firaxis is making a wrong call here, so part of my intent is to flag this to them before it's too late =).

Also...

The Fallacy of How "Option A" and "Option B" are mutually exclusive

What I'm so surprised with is that none of those condoning the tank-spearmen issue have addressed a fundamental point that I have been making since the start:

You can have both good game balance and a game that makes sense from a visual standpoint.

Civ II had this. Why shouldn't future Civs have it also?

If a game has both game balance and visuals that make sense, both camps are satisfied. The 10% won't be pissed off that tanks die to spearmen, while the 90% will still play on and enjoy the game balance. It's a win-win situation. Why does the engrossment of the game have to suffer for the sake of supposed game balance?

The only reason I can think of why people aren't responding to this is that they know it's indefensible and thus they don't want to debate a topic they know they can't win.

Does anyone have an alternative explanation?

[Gelondil]

For those who want more realism, just mod a realistic version of the game for your enjoyment. Here are my suggestions.

1) Adjust the attack power scale to *properly* represent real life. Tanks & battleships will become a lot more powerful than they were before.
2) Give all units bonuses to defend based on their relative armoring or penalties to attack armored units. (Thus tank +50% armor, archer -80% vs armored tanks)
3) Give all units bonuses/penalties to attack and defend based on their relative attack ranges.
4) Increase the existing bonuses/penalties to attack and defense based on relative mobility. (Thus helicopter +50% mobility attack bonus vs catapult -80% mobility defense penalty)
5) Eliminate most upgrades, especially across eras. If you want to beat someone down with tanks or musketmen, you will need to take the time to build them from scratch. Disbanding for shields should be re-implemented, however.

my 2 gp

[archermoo]

Originally posted by Zinegata

The only reason I can think of why people aren't responding to this is that they know it's indefensible and thus they don't want to debate a topic they know they can't win.

Does anyone have an alternative explanation?

Yes. I'd say it is much more likely that they consider it to be a non issue, and are busy playing and enjoying the game as written, rather than trying to argue with someone who doesn't like something about the game, has been given the tools to change it so that it works the way he would prefer, but instead wants to try and force his version of how things should work on everyone else by getting the makers of the game to change it so that it meets his approval.

*shrug* But hey, I could be wrong. But I must say it doesn't surprise me in the least that you work in marketing.