Anyone other than me hate Civ3 combat?

[Stuie]

Well at least with Conquests the archer will get a free shot at the first attacker before they slaughter your warrior.

[dearmad]

Well, I've always enjoyed the simplicity of the Civ combat system- allows me to focus more on strategy and doesn't ruin the balance of the game, IMO. I would not like the groups and the CTP/MOO method of combat in CIV. I like MOO II, however.

[oetkenjc]

Dont we play this game for realism ? I know I'm a dead horse but... why shouldnt my archer and warrior be able to group together and make a coordinated attack ?

That's all I'm saying... hundreds of years ago, an archer and a knight were able to work together to achieve a common goal.... today an m1a1 and a small infantry unit are able to work together, using each others strengths and weaknesses to obtain victory over an opponent...

Why shouldnt there be the same ability to group units in such a way in Civ ? (hopefully Civ4 or I'm going to take drastic measures...)

[Stuie]

Originally posted by oetkenjc
Dont we play this game for realism ?

Honestly, no. I play The Operational Art of War if I want realism.

[MrBaggins]

Not including combined arms is dumb. The Civ3 system is merely OK. By no stretch of the imagination could you argue that its better not to model cooperative attacks.

Saying that you like simplicity is one thing, but if you wish to abstract the military, then why even bother moving units about a map. Saying this simplicity is ok seems to be blatant homerism.

[oetkenjc]

I couldnt have said it better

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by oetkenjc
Dont we play this game for realism ?

Speaking just for myself, life is lived for realism and games are played for leisure, fun and sometimes escape from realism.

[oetkenjc]

But to combine both... THAT's what makes it interesting to me... so when I play I can actually pretend like I was Caesar and maybe wonder the effects I could have had on a time like that with my leadership style.... sure it's never going to be the same... he didnt sit in a little room in his stepdad's house in front of a p4 going at it all night.... but to an extent... it is/was similar... and that's what keeps me coming back to CTP2...

*shrug*

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by oetkenjc
Dont we play this game for realism ?

I don't! When I want realism, I fire up one of the many wargames I have. To implement those type of features into Civ would turn it into yet another wargame.

[oetkenjc]

*sigh*

[dearmad]

[bongo]

Thinking back on combat in civ2 and ctp2 I remember one point which is very different in civ3: Losses.

Once you reached a certain level of superiority in civ2, you never had any losses. Then you could bleed the AI white, causing him losses that were 10-100 times larger than your own. And later overwhelm him. The same were true in ctp2, as long as you were able to overwhelm your enemy in each battle you would win the war taking almost no casualties. I'm not the strongest advocate for realism in civ but large wars without losses are not very realistic.

My own (biased) opinion is that combat in civ3 is better. It's more realistic than civ2 and ctp2(not that important) and also more fun(very important). The AI doesn't collapse when you finally reach superiority.

Oh, if 5 barb horsemen attack one warrior and an archer, you're screwed. You would still be screwed if a stack of 5 barb horsemen attacked your own stack with one warrior+archer

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by bongo
Thinking back on combat in civ2 and ctp2 I remember one point which is very different in civ3: Losses.

Once you reached a certain level of superiority in civ2, you never had any losses. Then you could bleed the AI white, causing him losses that were 10-100 times larger than your own. And later overwhelm him. The same were true in ctp2, as long as you were able to overwhelm your enemy in each battle you would win the war taking almost no casualties. I'm not the strongest advocate for realism in civ but large wars without losses are not very realistic.

Wrong. Incorrect.

In Civ2 "superiority" was tech oriented. It still had the spearman-tank problem.

In CTP2 (it current state being either the Cradle, or SAP2 Mods) there is no spearman-tank problem. There ARE losses, however.

Example (taken from the CTP2 Demo game) : Consider you are going to storm a city which has 6 melee and 6 ranged troops (not uncommon at all, the AI builds well constructed stacks, given the resources.) The AI defenders have a defensive bonus of 50% from the city walls. If you send a 12 stack of relatively equal units in (we did) then they'll die. The defenders take casualties, however. In this case 4 casualties, but 8 casualties would be possible. Another stack was necessary to take the city, but that took casualties too.

Against a badly constructed force... I.E. all troops of one type... melee or ranged, an equally sized contemporary well constructed force will defeat them, and take fewer losses, but still take losses.

The ONLY situation where you don't take losses, and are using contemporary tech, is where you have a large stack, and you are picking off straglers.... one two or three units. Basically, you can do enough damage to overcome the defenders before they do enough to hurt your guys... but you'll probably even then have an injured unit or three... even if its mild.

Technical superiority, PLUS equal or better numbers equals an assured win, in CtP2. Probably with few or none causualties. If the tech is very close, then you'll take more casualties. A smaller, technically advanced force can STILL die to a larger, slightly less advanced force. The Tank/Spearman problem has been utterly solved.

Civ3 is laughable in comparison. A conveyor belt system to resolve battles. As if generals have a gentlemans agreement to each send one unit forward to fight at a time.

Its not simplicity. Its stupidity.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Wrong. Incorrect.

In Civ2 "superiority" was tech oriented. It still had the spearman-tank problem.

In CTP2 (it current state being either the Cradle, or SAP2 Mods) there is no spearman-tank problem. There ARE losses, however.

Example (taken from the CTP2 Demo game) : Consider you are going to storm a city which has 6 melee and 6 ranged troops (not uncommon at all, the AI builds well constructed stacks, given the resources.) The AI defenders have a defensive bonus of 50% from the city walls. If you send a 12 stack of relatively equal units in (we did) then they'll die. The defenders take casualties, however. In this case 4 casualties, but 8 casualties would be possible. Another stack was necessary to take the city, but that took casualties too.

What's the point behind your rant? Translated to Civ3 terms, that means: A walled city is defended by 12 units. A stack of 12 units attack as 1st wave. They die, the defenders take casualties however, may be even the same 4 as in your example, with the rest being more or less beaten up. It takes another 12 units to take the city. I fail to see a big difference in the outcome of the battle. Besides, Civ3 has melee and ranged (bombard) units too, which have the first shot if they're there, and are attacked last (if no melee unit is left). The only type of units it lacks are flanking.

Against a badly constructed force... I.E. all troops of one type... melee or ranged, an equally sized contemporary well constructed force will defeat them, and take fewer losses, but still take losses.

The ONLY situation where you don't take losses, and are using contemporary tech, is where you have a large stack, and you are picking off straglers.... one two or three units. Basically, you can do enough damage to overcome the defenders before they do enough to hurt your guys... but you'll probably even then have an injured unit or three... even if its mild.

Having different unit types pays off in Civ3 too. On the side of the attacker this are bombard units to soften up defense, foot attackers to inflict damage, ("mounted") attackers to kill retreating units, and defenders to protect the stack against counterattacks. On the side of the defender bombard units have a free shot against attackers, so it's always a good idea to have some. Defender units do the dirty work of the defense. Foot attackers do the counterattack against the stack. Mounted attackers hunt down retreating units. It's almost the same as in CivCtP/CtP2, well mixed units always pay off. Of course it needs some knowledge in the game one criticizes to see this. CtP (1 or 2) has the advantage of less micromanaging. You send your stack attacking and the rest is in Gods (or the RNG's) hand. The only thing you can do is to break the battle at some point. Civ3 has more MM, that's true, but it has the tremendous advantage, that you can change your attack strategy during attack even during the same turn. Meet unexpected fierce defense? Bombard some more before attacking again. Still not enough? Bring in some fast attackers from other theaters. You can't? Decide to retreat with the remainder of your forces. You can determine when to use units with different combat experiences (regulars, veterans, elites) to increase your efficiency or the chance to get a leader (assuming you have a clue what that is). Etc, etc... You micromanage, but you can control the battle much better than in CtP, where you can just "start" and "stop" the combat.

Technical superiority, PLUS equal or better numbers equals an assured win, in CtP2. Probably with few or none causualties. If the tech is very close, then you'll take more casualties. A smaller, technically advanced force can STILL die to a larger, slightly less advanced force. The Tank/Spearman problem has been utterly solved.

That never has been a problem for anyone able to see the abstract meaning of the Spearman as an ancient 1 attack, 2 defense and the Tank as a modern 16 attack, 8 defense unit. 16 vs 2 gives the attacker the lions share of chances, but not 100%. If you are a realism fan: There have been enough tanks killed by people with molotov cocktails. Or a spade, since you can dig a trap with it. Does this make the spade a deadly weapon? Besides, I'm playing Civ3 for almost 2 years now and had only once a tank losing against a pointy stick man. But that was not a spearman (ancient 1.2.1) but a pikeman (medieval 1.3.1) and the tank didn't die, but retreated (again, assuming you know what that is, since your game doesn't have this feature).

Civ3 is laughable in comparison. A conveyor belt system to resolve battles. As if generals have a gentlemans agreement to each send one unit forward to fight at a time.

Its not simplicity. Its stupidity.

Yea, sure, maybe... Whatever you say...

[bongo]

In Civ2 "superiority" was tech oriented. It still had the spearman-tank problem

If you routinely attack veteran spearmen fortified inside mountain fortresses with tanks you ARE going to loose some eventually. Both in civ2 and civ3. Besides, the 'bleed wite' strategy was quite easy to accomplish even with tech-parity. The same strategy is still valid in civ3 but the combination of an improved combat model, unit upgrades and smarter AI makes it much harder to accomplish.

I gave up on CTP too long ago to argue about details BUT i remember the 'retreat' button(CTP, CTP2 or both?). Send multiple strong stacks against an equal defender, result: One dead enemy stack and 2-4 wounded but intact stacks of your own.