Solution to the spearman - tank problem?

[spy14]

Hi,

Due to the power of PC's currently, and especially the power of them by the time Civ4 comes out, why not change the combat system to something more akin to Medieval: Total war?

I'm proposing the option to let the computer resolve combat or take charge of it yourself as the commander on the battlefield. It seems the best way to me to see if a bunch of spearchuckers, holed up in a metropolis or not, can actually take out a unit of tanks. With a realistic battle environment (seen in so many of todays games already) the players of the game can resolve the situation, not some useless random number generator.

This would also open the game up to a whole new audience and give it a new depth, as well as win back some of the people who have given up with Civ3.

Ideas on a postcard guys

[Todd Hawks]

May I quote Sid himself (here on his game "Covert Action"):

The enduring memory I have from Covert Action is what I call the "Covert Action Rule," which is: It's better to have one good game than two great games. The mistake I think I made in Covert Action is actually having two games in there kind of competing with each other. There was kind of an action game where you break into a building and do all sorts of picking up clues and things like that, and then there was the story which involved a plot where you had to figure out who the mastermind was and the different roles and what cities they were in, and it was a kind of an involved mystery-type plot.

I think, individually, those each could have been good games. Together, they fought with each other. You would have this mystery that you were trying to solve, then you would be facing this action sequence, and you'd do this cool action thing, and you'd get on the building, and you'd say, "What was the mystery I was trying to solve?" Covert Action integrated a story and action poorly, because the action was actually too intense. In Pirates!, you would do a sword fight or a ship battle, and a minute or two later, you were kind of back on your way. In Covert Action, you'd spend ten minutes or so of real time in a mission, and by the time you got out of [the mission], you had no idea of what was going on in the world.

So I call it the Covert Action Rule. Don't try to do too many games in one package. And that's actually done me a lot of good. You can look at the games I've done since Civilization, and there's always opportunities to throw in more stuff. When two units get together in Civilization and have a battle, why don't we drop out to a wargame and spend ten minutes or so in duking out this battle? Well, the Covert Action Rule. Focus on what the game is.

You may have a different opinion but I wholeheartedly agree with him. Civ is about strategy, not tactics. If that tank was vital to you, you did something wrong.

[crowatbitemedotcom]

I would think that option would really extend the playing time, especially in the late game. Might be okay to implement in a scenario though.

[vmxa1]

If they do much to the system, it won't be civ. Some say good, but if you had a meal ticket like this you would not be wise to risk it. Too many would likely say this is not civ.

[joncha]

I think a better solution for the "spearman problem" is to have unit strengths increase exponentially rather than geometrically.

As it stands, units (especially early on) tend to increase A/D strengths by 1 point at each upgrade. This is fine for ancient units, but the further up the development chain you go, the less important that 1 point becomes.

If, on the other hand, the increase is by powers of ten instead of by ones, the tank-spearman problem, while statistically possible, disappears. One way to balance problems this may cause it to have small increases within eras (as per the old system) and save the big jump for when you move from era to era.

I'm sure this will create some balance/game play problems that will need to be ironed out, but it will definitely solve forever the "spearman problem," thus saving online forums from the weekly thread complaining about it.

It will also force long-time players to rethink old strategies (warrior/horseman rush? fuhget-about-it!). All in all, I think it at least warrants a mod (if one doesn't already exist) to see how it plays out.

jon.

[Harovan]

Oh dear. Will this mess never end?

1 - Civ is not a war game. If you want a war game, go get one.

2 - It has never been a problem. It is a game with simplified, determined rules similar, but not identical to realism. It's not a simulation, which should be as close to realism as possible.

3 - Civ is not a war game, goddammit.

4 - Even if you are on the realism trip: In WWII and subsequent wars, lots and lots of tanks were lost in tank traps. Now what is the tank vs. spearman "problem" in the game compared with the real existing tank vs. spademan problem? With smart guerilla tactics you very well can take a hit on high tech equipped troops. Your odds will be not very high, though. The odds of a spearman vs. a tank aren't high either.

5 - Did I mention, that Civ is not a war game?

[vmxa1]

Not sure that is not a myth after a 1.29f or earlier anyway. I have not seen such a battle since the first few games I played.

[MrWhereItsAt]

If you lose a Tank to a Spearman once in a while it's just the luck of the draw. Think of the numerous ridiculous results from battles throughout history, from the Spanish Armada to Thermopylae, (**)It happens.

If you lose afew Tanks to Spears within a few battles of each other, it may be time to rethink your strategy. THAT is the real answer in Civ, IMO. If you start losing too much, think of a way to make your opponent lose. Whether it involves better positioning, ecnomic bombardment first to weaken your opponent or simply more Artillery, there is a large scope for changing strategies to get the job done. That is why there are defense bonuses for certain terrain, and units like Marines and Paratroopers exist. If there's a specific thorny problem then that's what this forum is for (well, perhaps the strategy forum would be best). If it is just a case of you losing Tanks when you attack Elite Spearmen fortified in Metropolises with Walls or on Mountain Fortresses, DUH.

[Nubclear]

When I Played civ3, I would have superior units lose to lesser ones all the time.
This wouldn't be a problem....if the AI didn't decide to solve everything by war. Ralph says it's not a wargame, but if you reject too many diplomatic deals, demand they respect your territory, not give into their ridiculous demands...They force you into war.
A loss every once and a while is OK. But I had to build huge stacks of modern armour to blow through the backwards AI army and even then I suffered massive casualties.
In fact...I remember my first game. I was Russia and had allied with India against some civ. I built up a bunch of some unit...and I pictured a huge army just going up and fighting.
But instead, it looked like only two units were fighting each other. I lost. Repeatedly.
"What? I have a ton of these, I just be winning by a mile."
And each time I "lost", they would gain experience. Admitantly I wasn't doing the wise thing by repteadly engaging, but it still was just frustrating seeing superior numbers of superior technology lose because they can't fight together.
I mean then war in civ becomes "Oh yeah? Well I can build 200 tanks, so " which just isn't fun at all.
Before I sold Civ3, I gave it a chance by playing and it was quite fun...until an alliance of AI nations declared war on me. I was vastly ahead of them, again, and had superior numbers but I suffered massive losses...I won, yes, but I hated how I simply had to produce these en masse in order to win against inferior units.
IMO, Civ3 need(ed)s to somehow tilt it a little more towards superior units.

And it became more frustrating when people began to post "This never happens! You lie!" to someone who posted that it happens. I mean, I saw it happening on the screen, so trust me its happening!
People did the calulations to "prove" its highly unlikely, etc etc....But it still did not quite stop it from happening.
Eventually I just got fed up with it, and sold it to some sucker. I used the funds to buy Morrowind (which was a great investment BTW).
Now I'm kind of wanting to give it another chance, but there are no vanilla Civ3s in my area (that are cheap. There are 2 at Fred Meier for $50, but when you have Civ3 gold for $40 right next to it......)

[Cookie Monster]

One thing we can do right now is attack in number. An occasional spearman victory over a tank is evened out by numbers.

I've noticed that in civ3 if you attack with single units they are less likely to succeed than when attacking as part of a stack of units. Try this and see if it helps you.

[steven8r]

I've never had the 'Spearman' problem. I've often prayed for it because I was the one w/ the Spearman. (yeah, sometimes I suck at this game--actually, If I only sucked, it would be an improvement. Sometimes I aspire to sucktion!!)

Somehow, I doubt that a single Spearman coult take-out multiple Tanks if he were properly bombarded by Artillery.

I don't have a problem w/ a defensive unit (doesn't matter which) which defeats an offensive unit. With many and varied Defense multiplyers, there's always the chance that an attack will fail (it seems the chance of failure generally favors me, while the chance of success seems to favor the AI--probably because the AI doesn't get 'emotionally involved' AND can figure combat odds better than I (generally due to laziness).

Anyway, I guess this does happen occationally, but that's just part of Civ. There is some degree of chance in every attack. Otherwise it would just be a formula.

To get rid of the problem permanantly, just get rid of the RNG. Just use Attack Strength vs. Defense Strength + Bonuses. That way you'd know (or could at least calculate) the outcome of every battle. Where's the fun in that???

Steven

[Tall Stranger]

As Sir Ralph so clearly stated (repeatedly!), Civ is NOT NOT NOT a wargame. Period.

I, for one, would be very displeased if Firaxis wasted the time, money and effort to graft a tactical military game to Civ. If I wanted such a game, I'd go buy one. I'd much rather they used those resources to, for example, improve the AI.

I've had strings of bad luck. Heck, I once lost a full-strength Ancient Cav army to a spearman. The stream of profanity I hurled at the computer was both graphic and colorful. The reality is that this stuff rarely happens, both in the game and in real life. Deal with it. As others have pointed out, if your game is ruined by a single tank being lost, you're doing something seriously wrong.

[spy14]

Interesting views, couple of points

1)Daft results have often happened through history, as mentioned. Point is you dont get a reason at present; in a proper game environment you'll be able to see all results evolve, and know what went wrong (tank traps or whatever)

2) Civ is NOT a wargame, as mentioned. Thats why I suggested this to be an option to appeal to all audiences.

3) Losing one tank isnt any sort of a problem to most peoples plans, but when you see it lost to an inferior unit you want to know wtf went wrong.

4) This thread is a suggestion and not a complaint

Which is now 4 points so i'll leave it there for the mo

[gunkulator]

For those of you wishing for superior units to win just about every time, might I suggest the following:

1) Uninstall Civ3
2) Reinstall Civ2
3) Get a key tech lead (monotheism, leadership, tactics, etc.)
4) Build killer unit
5) Win 100% of the time

[vmxa1]

To say it is not a wargame is not the same as to say there is no combat. Yes there are lots of wars, but it is not intended to be a realistic portrayal.

If one sees that too often a clearly superior unit loses, that can be seen at times. The problem I see is when people complain about units losing that are only marginally better that the one they attacked.

So we do not need a fix for spear vs tank. We maybe could stand a tweak to the streaky RNG, but only if it is not drastic. This may not be easy to accomplish.