Announcement

**Stuie** · November 3, 2003, 14:46

Well....... units in the archer upgrade path will have the same "first strike" chance the artillery currently have when defending in a stack, but other than that, you might be better off sticking with a system you like.

**vondrack** · November 3, 2003, 14:49

Changing the combat system is not a matter of "fixing" something (that is broken). The combat system of Civ3 was designed to be this way - it's still, IMHO, a huge improvement over the combat system of Civ2, where that first unit you defeated actually doomed all the other units flying the same colours in the same tile...).

Think of it this way: one tile is 10x10 miles. That's quite some territory. Sure the units need not be at the very same spot - they may be positioned throughout the countryside. When the enemy warriors attack, they attack the unit of warriors - and later attack the archers.

A warrior and archer contained within an army would be what you are thinking of - a single fighting formation (not that it would be a good idea to create a warrior-archer army

).

I am not all that eager to defend the system - I can imagine that being able to meaningfully combine troops would be great. But I do not see a way to change that earlier than in Civ4...

**oetkenjc** · November 3, 2003, 15:10

True... it is not "broken"... but to the effect of realism... I truly think it is.

I just honestly wish the "Group Units" option was available so that I might ensure that my archer and warrior is near each other in the 10X10 square.

I honestly dont see how you guys survive with this type of system... you must have mass amounts of units in order to accomplish any objective in fear of them failing.

Hell, even when you change the thought from defending to attacking. Basically what I see it as... if you're attacking and you cant group your units... it's like sending 1 person against an entire castle/city by himself. When he falls over dead... "NEXT!" and the next guy goes up there and hopefully doesnt receive the same fate dished out to the other one.... on and on until finally all are dead.... in no way using any strategy or coordination in any way.... grrr... what gives!?

*disgruntled civ3 owner*

**Stuie** · November 3, 2003, 15:13

My solution has always been judicious use of artillery. Soften the targets, then attack with the grunts. Seems kind of realistic to me.

I guess it comes down to how you like your combat abstracted.

**Sava** · November 3, 2003, 15:14

I agree that the combat system isn't what I'd like it to be. The only thing you can do is wait for the next game and hope the people at Firaxis improve things.

**Alex** · November 3, 2003, 15:30

I'm almost sure you'll be able to group units for combat purposes in Civ4.

But the Civ3 system doesn't bother me at all, I'm used to it since Civ2 and SMAC.

**Harovan** · November 3, 2003, 15:46

I can't say that I hate the Civ3 combat system, but I also can't say that I like it. It is oversimplified for AI's sake, which is a great fun reducer for multiplayer games. It should have been implemented in 2 ways, one for SP (the way it is) and one for MP without AIs, with true ZoC, stacked combat (and I don't mean armies with that) and limited movement even with RR's.

**oetkenjc** · November 3, 2003, 16:39

It sounds like I'm being biased or whatever... but I havnt been able to get past 5 minutes of playing because it absolutely $^)(*%#$'s me off so much that I cant do something that is soo feasible.

I know there's no sense in further discussing this since me sitting here on a soapbox isnt going to change things... just it frustrates me so much that a game did so well on the boards and so many people like it... yet something so simple is amazingly wrong.

Thanks for your feedback/thoughts.

**Tall Stranger** · November 3, 2003, 16:50

While I am certainly not in love with the combat system, I think you need to keep in mind a couple of things:

1. Civ is a turn-based strategy game, NOT a war game. A certain level of abstraction is both necessary and proper.

2. Under the current system, combat does not, as you say, amount to "sending 1 person against an entire castle/city by himself." In actuality, you are sending one individual unit against another individual unit, albeit in a serial fashion. This serial approach has both negatives and positives: on the minus side, it does not allow for the simultaneous attack on/ overwhelming of a given unit; on the plus side, it allows you to control which units you send into the battle at any given time and allows you to stop fighting a battle when things are not looking good. Ideal? No, but a fair trade-off.

3. Changing the system in the way you propose would amount to a massive rewrite of the code and would require equally large changes to the AI. The AI does a lousy job of stacking units and tends to attacks in a haphazard way. Rarely do you see AI SODs. As a result, the human player would have an even greater advantage in combat than it currently does.

In my view, there are lots of other things that I'd rather see improved before tackling the combat system.

**oetkenjc** · November 3, 2003, 17:28

Originally posted by Tall Stranger
While I am certainly not in love with the combat system, I think you need to keep in mind a couple of things:

1. Civ is a turn-based strategy game, NOT a war game. A certain level of abstraction is both necessary and proper.

2. Under the current system, combat does not, as you say, amount to "sending 1 person against an entire castle/city by himself." In actuality, you are sending one individual unit against another individual unit, albeit in a serial fashion. This serial approach has both negatives and positives: on the minus side, it does not allow for the simultaneous attack on/ overwhelming of a given unit; on the plus side, it allows you to control which units you send into the battle at any given time and allows you to stop fighting a battle when things are not looking good. Ideal? No, but a fair trade-off.

3. Changing the system in the way you propose would amount to a massive rewrite of the code and would require equally large changes to the AI. The AI does a lousy job of stacking units and tends to attacks in a haphazard way. Rarely do you see AI SODs. As a result, the human player would have an even greater advantage in combat than it currently does.

In my view, there are lots of other things that I'd rather see improved before tackling the combat system.

Well.. ok... but..

1.) The title and the word Civilization gives you a sense that you're going to feel the rigors and the joys that took place all along the lines of progression from the time that we walked the earth tugging women around by their hair up til the time we're going to be enslaved by them because of the little weaknesses us men have.... but that's another story.

One of those rigors is War. Watch the daily news and you can clearly see that many times the will of people is to be violent... and not to mention sometimes greedy. Throw all of this together with also the occassional miscommunication because we're not perfect and you'll have a long history of aggressive conflicts between people.... religion... culture... whichever. It happens and it has happened a lot... and it more than likely always will.

With that said... to say that Civilization isnt a War game... then you are right in a sense... no this game isnt called Panzer General ... or 1942... or whatever your preference... but to say it is absent of war (not saying you did) is completely false, and even tho it has so much more depth than just conflict, it's a issue that should receive A LOT of attention because:
1) It's one of the ways you can win the game
2) I've never heard of anyone playing this game for more than 30 minutes without them having to attack or at least defend themselves from other nations/barbies.

2) That is true, but you're not able to select the unit. And I hate to use the term, but why shouldnt I be able to use the 5 Warriors I just trained to gangbang and ensure victory over (or to minimalize damage) a unit or city. Their efforts 'should' work together for a common goal... whenever a battle/war takes place... it's not this army of one crap. It's several different units operating with certain assignments... for the victory.

And.. well, there's no reason why an army attacking a city or unit cant have the retreat function (like on CTP2.. hate to refer to it all the time)... where as you're in combat for another round while you're tucking tail and running the other way with great haste...

3) You're prolly right... and this prolly wont change for a great while... or until Civ 4... if there will ever be one... I'm just kinda venting and also seeking what others do to get past this... because I'm more than sure it's gotta piss off several others as well..

Computer AI for stacking ? Erm.. well, CTP2 does a pretty good job... they are pretty smart when it comes to throwing catapults with a couple smaller ranged units and then with grunts in the front.... they do a rather good job and I've fallen victim to their AI quite a bit... I see no reason why Civ couldnt do just as well.... arnt they the same people anyway ?

True... we're all going to find different flaws in this game... and each one will hold different weight as far as how much they need to be modified... small ones I can ignore... but... if it's something as big as Combat... something that your'e going to do from start to finish without a doubt... a better and more realistic system needs to be conceived.

Thanks.. and sorry for the novel.
Leo

**spy14** · November 3, 2003, 17:53

I've never had to big an issue with the Civ3 combat sytem... but I would still say that I definately prefer the CTP2 system, because it gives you the option and therefore far more realism.

**vondrack** · November 3, 2003, 18:33

Originally posted by oetkenjc
2) I've never heard of anyone playing this game for more than 30 minutes without them having to attack or at least defend themselves from other nations/barbies.

Heh, 30 minutes... I played one game (~16 hours playing time) as the Germans where I fought NOT A SINGLE BATTLE against another civ in the entire game! Won by diplo victory eventually... I still have the final save somewhere...

There - you have it. You can't use this argument any more, since you have just heard of somebody that did not fight for ~16 hours...

**Tall Stranger** · November 3, 2003, 19:22

Originally posted by oetkenjc

Well.. ok... but..

1.) The title and the word Civilization gives you a sense that you're going to feel the rigors and the joys that took place all along the lines of progression from the time that we walked the earth tugging women around by their hair up til the time we're going to be enslaved by them because of the little weaknesses us men have.... but that's another story.

Oh, I see you're married, too?!

it's a issue that should receive A LOT of attention because:
1) It's one of the ways you can win the game
2) I've never heard of anyone playing this game for more than 30 minutes without them having to attack or at least defend themselves from other nations/barbies.

Don't misunderstand me. I am pretty much a full-time warmonger. In my view, it's the most fun way to play. However, there is a balance that has to be struck between delving into the details and keeping the game at the "strategic" level. For example, the economic tools outlined are pretty rough as well. You can't set different tax/ lux rates for different cities. You are somehow able to change production from a temple to a swordsman without missing a beat, etc. If Firaxis were to go into much greater detail in the combat system, it would probably be under pressure to do likewise in econ, culture, tech, etc. The result: an insanely complicated game that takes 200 hours to play. End result: no one buys the game, Firaxis collapses, causing rioting in the streets, and bringing on the Apocalypse. (OK, slight exaggeration)

2) That is true, but you're not able to select the unit. And I hate to use the term, but why shouldnt I be able to use the 5 Warriors I just trained to gangbang and ensure victory over (or to minimalize damage) a unit or city. Their efforts 'should' work together for a common goal... whenever a battle/war takes place... it's not this army of one crap. It's several different units operating with certain assignments... for the victory.

Actually, if you think about it, the offense-defense balance is about right. Historically, as a rule of thumb, attacking forces look for a 3:1 superiority to feel confident in taking position against an equally skilled adversary. When I am looking to take a town defended, say, by 2 spears, I'll usually plan to bring 6-7 archers to attack (sometimes more depending on how important the battle is). That works out roughly right.

3) You're prolly right... and this prolly wont change for a great while... or until Civ 4... if there will ever be one... I'm just kinda venting and also seeking what others do to get past this... because I'm more than sure it's gotta piss off several others as well..

Feel free to vent. Doesn't bother me a bit, but I also don't think it'll change much. As you said, the earliest such a change would be made is Civ 4, so you'll probably be waiting a couple of years.

In the meantime, there are ways to, as you say, "get past this." First of all, stop focusing on what you feel are the "unrealistic" elements of the combat system. Understand the workings of the combat system and use the rules to guide your strategy. It sounds like you don't like losing units. I know how harsh this sounds (and I'm not trying to be mean or insulting) but get over it. Instead, BUILD MORE UNITS. To avoid getting bogged down in a war you can't win, set clear goals for yourself ("I'll take these three cities only, then sue for peace.")
Finally, feel free to post a save if you're having trouble. There's a lot of great players here who are more than willing to help.

I hope you find these comments helpful.

**oetkenjc** · November 3, 2003, 20:05

Certainly... glad this stayed civil as well... great responses...

I might start up another game and see how it goes... 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.

But yeah... I'll take everything I've discovered from you guys and see how it goes....

Thanks!

Announcement

Anyone other than me hate Civ3 combat?

Anyone other than me hate Civ3 combat?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment