Anyone other than me hate Civ3 combat?

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
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.

There's absolutely no reason to get this hostile. No one is forcing you to play Civ 3.

And, of course, the CTP version makes SO much more sense. As if generals send evey single unit into a battle at exactly the same time and don't have the ability to redirect their forces based on how the battle develops. It's not realistic. It's ridiculous.

I make the same point I made earlier: if one uses a 3:1 attacker advantage against roughly equal units (i.e. a unit with an attack strength of 2 vs. unit with defense strength of 2), you can GENERALLY expect to win. This roughly resembles "real life."

But you don't seem to care about having a reasoned discussion. You'd rather rant instead. Fine, but don't expect to win over any converts or impress anyone.

[Harovan]

It isn't even a conveyor belt system, since each battle the toughest defender (or the most healthy, if all are the same) is taking over. I think you're right, he's just out to troll. I think he should better use more of his time to improve the AI of his beloved game now that the source code is out. Which means to add one, since Activision forgot about it.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


What's the point behind your rant?

The statement was merely responding to the point of the prior poster who said CtP2 combat was lossless. Which it clearly isn't.

CTP2 also has calvary modifiers, and zones of control. There is pre-bombardment, and counter bombardment (in turn).

Force composition is the means by which you control how you fight, to some degree, but the synergy between the units allows for far more complex situational war than Civ3.

The game has a frontline plus a ranged row for the combatants, and, as you've mentioned flanking. Thus CtP2 generals don't send everyone in at the same time. There is a system of reinforcement, battle fronts, and thus flanking.

You simply can't implement such a fundemental battle concept as flanking, if you have a conveyor belt.

And... Sir Ralph, I challenge you to play and beat the current state of CTP2 at the highest difficulty level. The FrenzyAI mod has made for an intensely challenging game.

[yin26]

it's like sending 1 person against an entire castle/city by himself

Wow! I guess this explains the new wallpaper!

[Harovan]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
The statement was merely responding to the point of the prior poster who said CtP2 combat was lossless. Which it clearly isn't.

Granted.

CTP2 also has calvary modifiers, and zones of control. There is pre-bombardment, and counter bombardment (in turn).

I would like some of these features added to the Civ3 combat system, as I pointed out many times.

Force composition is the means by which you control how you fight, to some degree, but the synergy between the units allows for far more complex situational war than Civ3.

The game has a frontline plus a ranged row for the combatants, and, as you've mentioned flanking. Thus CtP2 generals don't send everyone in at the same time. There is a system of reinforcement, battle fronts, and thus flanking.

I actually like the CtP2 combat system better than the Civ3 one, so you're barking up the wrong tree. Fact is, most of us know all these things ourselves and have said so repeatedly. Thing is, we don't want it to be mentioned by you. "You" meaning regular players of other games who stop by just to troll or trash a game they don't even play. Look, after Civ3 came out, a lot of CtP2 regulars trolled here, trying to bait players into their forum, which was drying out due to the hype. I then launched a couple of countertrolls in the CtP2 forum, addressing among others the crappy as hell map generator, the stupid (better: non existant) AI, the flaws around trade and piracy, the crappy diplomacy (no treaties are kept longer than 2 or 3 turns) and others. I was flamed and insulted to death. Well, maybe I deserved it, but as quintessence I was told, that all I said was basically true and well known, but they wouldn't want to hear it from an outsider like me. Analogically, you would be wise not beat dead horses here, but to concentrate your effort to iron out the flaws of your own game now that you have the opportunity.

You simply can't implement such a fundemental battle concept as flanking, if you have a conveyor belt.

It isn't exactly a conveyor belt, as you in every single combat face the toughest defender, which is the more likely a fresh healthy unit, the larger the stack is.

And... Sir Ralph, I challenge you to play and beat the current state of CTP2 at the highest difficulty level. The FrenzyAI mod has made for an intensely challenging game.

It's not going to happen. I played it for a year, between Civ2 and Civ3 (along with SMAC, which I however didn't like much), but now I won't install this game again. The AI is not a challenge at all, and the mods are instable and don't work so good with localized versions. Actually, I may install it and play around with the source code for myself. Maybe I can get it rid of that uncivish PW concept and gloriously reinstall workers?

Oh and btw... @ yin.

[bongo]

MrBaggins , you are just trolling, I feel ashamed for ever swallowing your bait

[TheArsenal]

I play and like both CtP2 and PtW. The combat system in CtP2 is clearly superior, and the game overall – as modded - is definitely worth a play. But that doesn’t really help here as its apples and oranges and certainly a matter of preference.

Within the confines of the combat system in CivIII, which is not going to change radically, there are a few things I would like to see done better, and hopefully were changed in Conquests:

When I click on a stack, I would like to see the units arranged in the list according to unit type. The lack of list cohesion is particularly annoying when you bring bombardment units to a point of attack with a large stack and have to figure out and wade through the list to bombard before launching an attack.

The ability to attack by moving all units at once, or all units of one type against a target/city, was a great improvement from Vanilla. The only thing I would like to see done here is if you use the move all/move unit type to automatically attack, that the units automatically attack (a) from units with highest attack points to lowest, and within each unit type attacking, a subgroup of (b) highest hit points to lowest. The current problem with the “attack all” is in between throwing, say, Cavalry at a city the occasional Spearman or Cavalry with one hit point will slip in and get quickly mauled. Yes, I know there are ways around this by fortifying units (which would be easier with a “by unit” list), but it would still be a nice fix.

[oetkenjc]

lol... okay, well since I started this thread I'm hoping I'm not getting accused of trolling.. especially since I just figured out what it is.... I was more coming here initially to see everyone's tactics in this game or modifications to the game that might have been made since civ 3 has imo a horrible combat system.

Bongo:
It's my nature whenever I play this game to keep up to date units. When musketeers come out... I methodically begin training enough musketeers to defend each city... and then all of my knights are then my attacking army. Which even at that point an army of 12 knights is a force to be reconed with.... besides... at that point to me they are cannon fodder. I send them in with little care of whether or not they survive, if they did great... if not, that same round I'll send the musketeer army in there to mop up... (since I'm such a science geek, I normally always have gunpowder first)... The musketeers still get messed up pretty heavily if I do this without first weakening the town up with the knights.

Another example... a way win the game in CTP is basically the first person to discover the tank unit, and is able to mass produce them quickly. A pack of 12 flankers just like the knights is definitly a force that can take out several cities.... and while my production had been suffering because I'm putting so much into science, it finally pays off. But even though I do have this edge on them (a unit with high armor, damage, and range, and flanking omg) I still slip into a city that has catapults, cannons and arti among other things.... I still take losses, even though I'm am technologically superior.

So to be honest... I have no clue what you're saying.

As far as the Warrior / Archer combo versus those 5 barbies.... I dont really care who would have won... I just wish they would have been able to work together.

Tall Stranger:
lol... you're killing me.
"And, of course, the CTP version makes SO much more sense. As if generals send evey single unit into a battle at exactly the same time and don't have the ability to redirect their forces based on how the battle develops. It's not realistic. It's ridiculous."

It's not like that. It's tactics... it utilizing your units and their abilities to compliment each other. Generals sending units to attack at the exact same time ? What's wrong with that ? How hard, or how much intelligence does it take for 2 units in real life to plan their attacks together... to plan to advance together... hell to even set up base camp together? I really dont understand what you mean about redirecting your forces.... because in Civ 3 it seems they determine what units you're attacking, as if you could just magically decide...

Attacker: "Oh... I want to attack this warrior here, even though him and 4 mates are standing right next to each other in the same square."

Defender: (used to CTP rules) "Hahah.. me and mates will destroy you!"

Attacker: (pulls out the civ 3 manual) "Well technically no... your other buddies will have to sit and watch you and me duke it out and not interfere whatsoever because of reasons I have no idea.. but I'm sure drugs or alcohol had to do with it. In fact.. I dont know why I'm talking so intelligent because I'm too stupid to know how to advance into this attack square with others to back me up."

Sorry for the sarcasm.. but damn. Isnt it blatantly obvious ? There is nooooo reason why this up here should happen. It's crazy... and for all you people thinking something so simple as to this makes Civ 3 a war game... oooh, omg... what are you talking about ? It's not going to become any more of a war game if this is implemented than it already is. I still cannot comprehend the logic behind the current system.

Again.. I'm not ragging on the game.... I soooo SOOO much want to get into this... but it's already so much of a pain to build units and it takes so long (why should it take 12 turns to build a warrior whenever each turn is like 20 years?) already, to up it even more just because the way combat is handled in this game.

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by oetkenjc
lol... okay, well since I started this thread I'm hoping I'm not getting accused of trolling.. especially since I just figured out what it is.... I was more coming here initially to see everyone's tactics in this game or modifications to the game that might have been made since civ 3 has imo a horrible combat system.

So you claim. Yet rather than ask further questions about how the Civ 3 combat system, you continue to harp on how unrealistic Civ 3 is. If the system is so horrible, don't play it. My patience with this thread (and you) is wearing very thin.

Tall Stranger:
lol... you're killing me.
"And, of course, the CTP version makes SO much more sense. As if generals send evey single unit into a battle at exactly the same time and don't have the ability to redirect their forces based on how the battle develops. It's not realistic. It's ridiculous."

It's not like that. It's tactics... it utilizing your units and their abilities to compliment each other. Generals sending units to attack at the exact same time ? What's wrong with that ? How hard, or how much intelligence does it take for 2 units in real life to plan their attacks together... to plan to advance together... hell to even set up base camp together? I really dont understand what you mean about redirecting your forces.... because in Civ 3 it seems they determine what units you're attacking, as if you could just magically decide...

It's been a long time since I've played CtP2, so my memory may be faulty, but I recall that once you put units into an army and ordered that army to, for example, attack a unit in one square, all the units HAD to attack that square. That is also not realistic.

Furthermore, to claim that CtP is more "tactical" than Civ3 is true, but also irrelevant. Neither one is even marginally capable of even remotely capturing the complexity of true combat. Your claim is roughly the same as saying that Michelob is better than Bud. True, but neither comes close to a real beer.

CtP may have a better combat system, but Civ3 is (IMO) a better game.

Sorry for the sarcasm.. but damn. Isnt it blatantly obvious ? There is nooooo reason why this up here should happen. It's crazy... and for all you people thinking something so simple as to this makes Civ 3 a war game... oooh, omg... what are you talking about ? It's not going to become any more of a war game if this is implemented than it already is. I still cannot comprehend the logic behind the current system.

Then you're not trying. It's really not that complicated. I have a 10-year old nephew who can understand this. (I'm not sorry about the sarcasm.)

For the third time I will point out that the outcomes in Civ3 battles generally make sense in terms of general 3:1 attacker to defender ratio. Yet you have refuse to even acknowledge this fact. That further suggests to me that you are a troll.

Again.. I'm not ragging on the game.... I soooo SOOO much want to get into this... but it's already so much of a pain to build units and it takes so long (why should it take 12 turns to build a warrior whenever each turn is like 20 years?) already, to up it even more just because the way combat is handled in this game.

Actually, you are ragging on the game. I've said this before and I'll say it again: if you have a specific question, ask it. Otherwise, I've got no choice but to treat you like your buddy Mr Baggins (i.e. a troll) and ignore you. And just FYI, it can never take more than 10 turns to build a warrior: they only cost 10 units.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by oetkenjc
I just got sooo pissed whenever I had a Warrior and Archer sitting at a key spot where a bunch of Barbarians would keep coming from... and I got the little message "Barbarians rampage to the North" (Or something like that) ... and then 5 of them on horseback come streaming down... commenced to wiping out my warrior by his lonesome... then once he was done... commenced to whipping up on the archer.... then sliding carelessly into my city.

Dare I say that you were more pissed off that you lost than at the fact that the Warrior and Archer were not able to "team up". Had your units stacked and defended together, I doubt it would have made much of a difference. 5 Horsemen = 150 Shields versus 20 + 10 = 30 Shields for your units; you were outmatched 5:1 (maybe 4:1 if you consider that Barbs only have 2HPs).

Many comments about the combat system are born out of unrealistic expectations of what the units can do. This is especially true in complaints about the "randomness" of the combat in Civ, and I think this is just another facet of that debate. A stack of combined arms units in Civ3 is a force to be reckoned with, despite the fact that each units fight individually. You need to build the right tools (and enough of them!) to do the job.

This said, it would be cool to stack units into groups a la Call to Power. I personally disliked the way that system worked, but the idea is definitely promising for future TBS games.


Dominae

[Shogun Gunner]

Not that me jumping in is going to help at all...but a lot of people, myself included, are going to agree with Tall Stranger and Bongo on this issue.

It sounds as if you are trying to visualize in your mind's eye how the combat works. I don't think the visualization of one warrior guy running against the city walls, while his five warrior buddies sit on their helmets and watch is reasonable conclusion -- and I think you know that.

In the real world, when attacking, you focus a lot of energy into a narrow vector while protecting your flanks. You can't commit all six warrior guys to run abreast at the city wall at the same time. That's not how combat is conducted.

Furthermore, Tall Stranger gave a great description of how you can commit a few units, observe the results, decide to bombard some more, change strategy, call off the attack (does that sound like the retreat option in CTP2? - it does to me), etc. That sounds like a battle where you have some tactical decision points. The strategic part was handled when you got all of your units in the same location, the tactical is whether you bombard first, which unit attacks first, etc.

Nothing is perfect, and all games do have limitations, but geez, try to find a way to understand the battle mechanics in a way that's comfortable for you. Try to enjoy yourself. Its a game after all. If you don't like, don't play it.

[bongo]

TheArsenal said:

When I click on a stack, I would like to see the units arranged in the list according to unit type. The lack of list cohesion is particularly annoying when you bring bombardment units to a point of attack with a large stack and have to figure out and wade through the list to bombard before launching an attack

I totally agree on this one. But it is more of an UI issue than about the combat model.

About realism: I am perfectly aware of the fact that civ3 is NOT 100% realistics. Thats why I like it. It's the blend of exploring, wars, terraforming, city management and diplomacy that I like. If you change things too much you will eventually ruin it, I don't want a 'railroad tycoon' sub-game to put railroads between my cities, nor a 'sim-city' module to control production in my cities, or a 'panzer general' plug-in to wage war and thats what you will get if you add too much 'realism' everywhere.

Granted, CTP1&2 had lots of really good ideas and I enjoyed playing them but they never got the strong addiction-like grip on me that civ1,2&3 has. I guess it's just a matter of preferences.

[TheArsenal]

And CtP2, although a very good combat system, was not perfect either. It only allows for 12 units to occupy a single square, which creates problems moving separate stacked units of both slow movers and fast movers along a single road, and it eliminates the ability to fortify all attacking units on a particular advantageous piece of terrain and to throw all units into attack at the same time from that advantageous terrain.

But, like CivIII, it’s only a game.

And I have seen such nit picking on these boards about realism, that I am surprised no one complains that they don’t get splattered with blood, or that they can’t smell the gun powder when they play. (As I seem to say once a month) I look at these games as nothing more than the greatest chess games ever invented and don’t demand realism over game play. That said, I guess it’s a testimony to game makers that they can approximate realism to any such degree that so many people demand and think its possible that they do even more.

[oetkenjc]

Oooohkay... everything I wanted to get out of this Topic has pretty much been discussed, buried... dug up again and reburied.

Thanks for those who put in their two cents... it helped out a lot.... just gonna cross my fingers for Civ 4 it looks like...

[Peter Triggs]

And CtP2, although a very good combat system, was not perfect either. It only allows for 12 units to occupy a single square, which creates problems moving separate stacked units of both slow movers and fast movers along a single road, and it eliminates the ability to fortify all attacking units on a particular advantageous piece of terrain and to throw all units into attack at the same time from that advantageous terrain.

Could you please expand on this? Preferably in a thread in the CTP2 forum.