Aztecs killing my infantry and tanks!!!! what gives?!!!

[Titus7154]

I knew that Civ 3 was going to be racked with bugs but I didnt expect this. Units armed with Pikes and Tomahawks are killing my tank units? They took out 3 tanks and rolled right into my city without a problem! Even stranger are warrior units taking only about a quarter percent damage during air missions that fail 70% of the time!Most of the the time my air units destroy city improvements like roads and irrigation while enemy units dont even take any hits at all. Ive got airports and my trade adviser is still bugging me about sea routes. This game needs fixes and patches fast! Who was it that said this was the greatest game stragedy game ever made?

[Barnacle Bill]

This is not a bug, it is a purposeful design decision.

The strategic resource concept means that almost all (maybe all) modern units require one or more strategic resources to build. Therefore, if you have no supply of some key resource you won't be able to build modern units - no oil = no tanks or airplanes, no rubber = no modern infantry, no aluminum = no airplanes, etc... So, on purpose, they made modern units only a slight improvement over ancient ones. Statistically, your tanks will beat their spearmen more often than not, but they will win enough that their entire civilization won't get wiped out by one tank for lack of some resource.

As I have posted elsewhere, I think this was not the best approach they could have used. They should have done something like what I will do for my personal mod, once the editor is patched to allow adding units (or we get a clear answer that the ones added by the copy tool and/or hacked editor are not causing the crashes of which they are now suspected). I will create a copy of every "key" unit that requires a strategic resource, and then edit each copy as follows: appending "(E)" (for "Ersatz") to its name, remove the resource dependency, triple the shield cost. I will then greatly increase the spread of attack & defense factors - what I'm thinking offhand is multiplying all "gunpowder era" units (musketmen, cannon, riflemen, cavalry, caravel, galleon, frigate, ironclad & all their UU counterparts) attack/defense factors by 2, and all modern ones by 3. The exact number I use will kind of depend on what the highest attack/defense factors you can assign turns out to be (in Civ2 you could go up to 98, but an attack factor of 99 made it a nuke, and I used this in my personal Civ2 mod to fix the same problem which existed to a lesser degree in Civ2 than in Civ3). I probably won't bother with "ersatz" versions for pre-gunpowder units, since the results don't feel so wrong if (for example) a spearman beats a knight. The intent of this mod would be to eliminate the rediculous combat results while retaining a realistic (as evidenced by numerous examples in history) work-around for lack of strategic resources.

[SonofDogbreath]

The only problem that I see with this is that it defeats the power of trade embargoes and things like the nuclear proliferation treaty, which I think are a great addition. While 3X the cost is high, I often have plenty of production to burn and would gladly pay production points to avoid having to gear up for and deal with the consequences of war. If I could just pay more for a unit rather than having to go fight for the resource I would. My last game I didn't have any saltpeter (not good) and no one was as advanced as me yet to trade it. I could have traded the tech to them but didn't think it was a good idea, so I just took the tile by conquest. I think that is what Sid et al had in mind. Seems quite realistic to me.

Your point about spearmen defeating tanks does need to be addressed though. I guess I would like to see the increase in unit strengths like you describe (2X after gunpowder and 3X for modern units) but without the ability to buy your way around resources. This will make the competition for these resources much greater.

You could overcome the advantage that the controlling nation has by either increasing the number of resources (making them potentially available to more civs) or by revealing the resources earlier. By revealing them earlier, the left out nations can gear up for a resource war before the controlling nation defends itself with the upgraded troops. This would also still force civs to research since they wouldn't have any lead-time about the resource locations if they fall too far behind in the tech game.

What do you think?

[SonofDogbreath]

I was thinking more about your comment on one tank taking out an entire civ. Do you think that there is any way to add a supply feature so that each unit in enemy territory must be able to trace a path back to a friendly city (allied or their own). If they don't have supply, they take one hit a turn until they either die or get resupplied.

This would protect a tech challenged civ by allowing them to cut the supply route behind the unit.

My initial thoughts are that this could be linked to the CTR-R feature or the CTR-N feature. The unit would have to be "part of the connected network" of cities. Or, units could be required to be able to return to friendly territory within one or two turns of normal movement. This would allow safe entry to an enemy's border but danger to blitz through without support. Friendly territory could be defined as within the cultural sphere of the home nation, an ally or another friendly unit that is supplied.

I realize that this would take some effort, but think of the possibilities!!!! Strategic strikes to supply lines by guerilla troops, Air strikes to disrupt supply (take out the rail-line or roads).

What 'cha think?

[SonofDogbreath]

SHould this thread be moved to Civ3-Creation?

[Titus7154]

Sonof, I see now what Sid was trying to do. But still a guy with a Tomahwak taking out a tank unit not only seems ridiculous to me but impossible. Historically speaking gunpowder, and firearms changed the enitire nature of the way warfare was carried out. Indeed firearms and artillary is responsible for smaller armies subjegating nations of millions. Take a look at the current camapaign in Afghanistan right now as we speak. If my F15 cant take out a warrior then I fail to see the necessity in a technology tree at all. Why research new advances if they ptovide abosolutely no advatage. In the real world, a man with a sword in his hand would sue for peace if he saw an F15 coming right at him. The Aztecs are laughinmg at me! taughting me and calling me names! Ive got tanks, Ive got F15's and theyve got swords and axes, and theyre killing me and ransacking my cities. I fail to see how Sid sees modern warfare. He needs to read a couple of manuals of JANE. That should enlighten his views on warfare a bit. While I repsect the opinion that was shared that this was not a bug but a purposful design, I simply cannot except that. If indeed this was Sid's intention then Im afraid that his game falls far from the mark of excellence that Ive been hearing about. The game is indeed addictive, and you find yourself playing it hoir after hour, but its losing some of its playability with me. I know what your thinking!, Why dont you make your own game?!! Thats what a friend of mine just told me! Maybe I will!!! thanks fpor your response and your time.

[Barnacle Bill]

Well, the thinking at Firaxis seems to have been - "We want strategic resources to be important, but we don't want people who lack them to be totally hosed, so let's allow guys with swords to be only slightly inferior to guys with tanks - if you can't build tanks for lack of strategic resources you can still get the job done with swords, it just may take a few more guys".

The thinking at BarnacleBillaxis is - "We also want strategic resources to be important, and we also don't want people who lack them to be totally hosed, but we don't want rediculous combat results where guys take out tanks with swords either, so let's make tanks as close to swordproof as the editor will allow and just make it real expensive to build high-tech units w/o the applicable strategic resource - in real history that is how it works, if you can't get cheap access to what you need, human ingenuity always provides an expensive but workable alternative".

In support of my assertion, consider the following:

In WWI, the Germans built a class of coal-fired battleships (when oil had replaced coal as a naval fuel about a generation earlier) because they were experiencing a petroleum shortage due to the British blockade.
In WWI, German colonial forces in Africa improvised motor fuel from plant sources (ethanol?) because they were cut off from any source of supply.
In WWII, the Germans made synthetic petroleum products out of coal because again they were experiencing a petroleum shortage due to the British blockade.
In WWII, the US developed synthetic rubber because of a shortage of natural rubber due to Japanese conquest of most of the sources.
In WWII, the Germans developed a new jet fighter design (HE162, I think) to be built without the need for "strategic materials" normally used in aircraft because those things were in short supply.
Along the modern Afgan/Pakistani border, native gunsmiths make modern weapons of all sorts by hand.
In WWII, the Japanese went to war to grab the oil they lacked due to a US-led embargo, but it did not work - they grabbed the oil fields in (what is now) Indonesia but its total capacity was less than their need to start with, and the ship carrying unreplacable technicians to run that oil field got torpedoed by a US sub in-route so the field never came close to producing at prewar capacity. Unfortunately (from the Japanese perspective, fortunately from the US perspective), Japanese ingenuity was not quite up to the German level at the time.

If the thinking "your handle here"axis is "We also want strategic resources to be important, and we also don't want rediculous combat results where guys take out tanks with swords, but we don't really care (or actually prefer) that people who lack them are totally hosed, so let's make tanks as close to swordproof as the editor will allow and make the guys with nothing but swords die", then feal free to impliment only the combat factor changes and leave resources alone. The beauty of the editor concept is that we can all have the Civ3 we want (within the Editor's limitations, which hopefully will be fewer after the promised patch)

[Titus7154]

Barnicle, indeed. I agree. I'll be spending alot more time with the editor obviously. It seems to me that Sid could have made it possible for a civilization without the resources to build an army with tanks and etc to survive and thrive. If indeed he wanted to highlight resources. Lets say I have no means for tank warfare, but rich in petro deposits. In a pre fission era I would be able to clean up with trade routes to all of the nation leaders. I would be able to buy advances with those resources, but Sid's tech tree is very strict and very tech specific. Some things you can advance around, but others you simply cant. In Imperial galactica2 even though I hadnt reserched the advance, there was a trade market that allowed me to buy ships and weapons without having the specific tech. OPEC is one of the most manipulative cartels going today. In america we have 215 million cars that consume 80% of all the oil we use. A nation with such a resource would be able to have the major military powers on the map bending over backwards. If Sid really wanted to play the resources game he could have consider these options. Not play foolish games with modern warfare. With its normal setup of AI, my enemies have no fear of the huge army Ive built, and rightly so. If I cant stop a guy with a tomahawk he should just come on in! I find myself rushing with tech advances, and the guy with a pre-industrial army is attacking me and threatning me constantly.

once again, thanks for your response.

[Ironwood]

This is an old thread, but having returned to the forum after a long haitus playing Dragon Warrior 7 and a little Civ3, I feel the need to add some justifications that were used on older forums to justify the rediculous combat results that sometimes occured in Civ1.

The justification is this:

In a later era, the lack of a specific "technology" within a culture is generally not a hinderance to determined individuals. Though they may lack the infrastructure, industrial capacity, and techological knowhow of their neighbors, a primative civilization (is that an oxymoron?) will improvise with whatever they can get their hands on. In short, a spear toting fighter may not be able to make an F-16 or even a basic machine gun... but, there are many, many materials that go boom.

In other words, those axe and spear toters are toting more than just axes and spears. They're toting axes, spears, and moltov cocktails.

Though I do admit it's pretty unrealistic for them to be taking cities, particularly if they are of *your* nationality... assuming they're actually cities (not towns) or have walls. Without some kind of physical perimeter (whether it be a wall, an earthen breastwork, a trench, or a neighborhood watch), infiltrate and sabotage missions become possible.

Another thing: Earlier, someone mentioned that gunpowder revolutionized warfare. This is somewhat true, but that's just because training a muskteer takes a lot less time than training a good bowman. As late as the period of U.S. westward expansion, a number of Sioux warriors on horses, often shooting bows (faster reload cycle than most guns of that period), were easilly a match for an equal number of U.S. Cavalry. The thing is, it was never an equal number. U.S Cavalry was drawn from a much larger population base, and were a tax supported army, rather than a traditional warrior caste (meaning those U.S. cavalry had few pressing responsabilities at home to worry about and could stay in the saddle longer, wheras a coalition of plains warriors would break up as quickly as it could, to tend business at home). And, that population base, combined with the ease of training gunmen (as opposed to bowmen), mean losses are more quickly replaced.

Just a few thoughts regarding the ease with which "ancient units" defeat modern ones.

[Titus7154]

Ive sinced learned to take my time and not be in a rush for tech advances. I also go to war a lot sooner for resources or I find myslef colonizing them. The key is barrack trained units and fortresses near your city. I am still amazed at how they still stand up to my tanks, and how my air strikes almost always failed to stop warriors and and guys with axes. But Im dealing with it. My best advise is have a stong Navy that can stop beach style landings, and have artillary at your boarders along with forests which I build in abundance to slow them down. If your playing Rome, the Legionary stops the aztec axe men cold for some resason. better than tanks!!! . In either case, thanks for your response I enjoyed the correspondence.

[Matthevv]

I would have thought that the logical way to get around the problem of a Civ without a resource or technology not being able to build a type of unit would be to allow them to buy units off a Civ that does. Their only other alternative if they don't have any friends to trade with, is to build huge numbers of troops.

I think the Spanish conquest of the Inca is the most extreme example of what usually happens if you have a technical weaponry advantage. A tiny number of men with steel swords a few cannon and horses routed an army of tens (hundreds?) of thousands. Other examples abound, the Romans would frequently overcome massive numerical odds because they had steel swords, against the iron ones of the Celts. I have read a number of times on this BB that Zulus with spears once beat an army of British musketmen - but they massively outnumbered them. In the same era, they also failed to defeat a far smaller number of musketmen in another battle. Look at the total numbers of troops that European powers used to conquer their empires, they were always tiny compared to the numbers of people in those countries. The only difference being gunpowder.

It isn't possible to justify the way that combat is done in Civ in any way as being historically realistic. Just the fact that you have all those armies wandering round is completely unrealistic. Full time armies were just too expensive to maintain for countries to have many full-time troops for most of history. Its pointless having any discussions along the lines of "why does my frigate only have a 50/50 chance of defeating a Caravel" or whatever. Its a game, not a historical simulation. I think that when the designers went back to the Civ1 way of combat, they were making a decision to go for what they think will be the most fun way to have the combat. If we don't like it, we can change it using the editor I think.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

If you treble or double the hit points in the editor, the occurence of such problems will reduce exponentially (i think). If you treble have conscripts at 6HP, regular 9HP, veteran 12HP, and elite 15HP, you can change by opening Civ III Mod and under units tab (i think, not sure, just look trough the tabs) It will make barracs a must build, and elite units more powerful but it will eliminate almost all of warrior kills tank problems.