Unit-unit-unit, who should win in battle

[me_irate]

I personally like cpt 2 system. The battles work great, normal infanty attack 1 unit at a time, but ranged units can attack any unit as catipults do. And cavalry can attack any unit as long as no unit is in fron of it. I would be disapointed if it didn't have a system at least simular to this.

[TechWins]

stacked units get powers added together?

I doubt it will be like this. If it is this way I hope there is an option to disable it because that will really make the game suck. I mean the game will really suck if stacking a lot of crappy units like triremes will actually be able to defeat a battleship like sebanaj said.

[sebanaj]

or 4 swords beating a tank! it happens on CTP 2

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by sebanaj
or 4 swords beating a tank! it happens on CTP 2

I mean the game will really suck if stacking a lot of crappy units like triremes will actually be able to defeat a battleship like sebanaj said.

Please remember that - as OneFoot mentioned - the Civ system has aeroplanes being destroyed 1 on 1 by pikemen so lets not get too scathing about CtP where they have to gang up 20-1 to achieve the same result. In CtP you need to have units with range or flanking potential to exploit the stack advantage too.

I'm confident that triremes could not beat a battleship but massed galleons could. I'd also be willing to bet that if 4 swords units beat a tank it was because the tank attacked the swords while they were fortified in bad terrain. Given that scenario I think I could come up with some imaginative ways of ambushing and destroying the tanks just like the unequipped Afghans did when Russia tried it on.

The combat system rewards people for having high tech and rewards people for having combined arms. It can't make tech alone invulnerable because it would be historically wrong and also make the game a shallow tech race. An army big enough to outflank the opposition and shell it from range before close assaulting from three directions deserves the credit of an increased chance of victory.

Off topic, at Rourke's Drift the Zulu chiefs were impressed with the courage of the enemy and retreated voluntarily. It is only because they had that sense of honour and pride that Rourke's Drift is known today.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Off topic, at Rourke's Drift the Zulu chiefs were impressed with the courage of the enemy and retreated voluntarily. It is only because they had that sense of honour and pride that Rourke's Drift is known today.

Not true. You've been watching too many movies. The Zulus retreated for two reasons. Firstly, the destruction of a quarter of a fighting force has proved sufficient throughout the history of warfare to deter further attacks. Secondly, a British relief column that was moving in quickly to reinforce the defenders was spotted a few miles off.

Back on topic, I agree with your point that a technologically advanced civ should not be able to run roughshod over a less advanced one. This is why a single tank unit should get destroyed by an army of, say, 8 musketeers. Setting every unit as containing 1000 men, a tank unit should have something like 100-150 tanks in the field, given the large amount of behind-the-lines support required by modern units. The 8 musketeers would have something like 7000 men in the field. 50-70 musketeers per tank. The tank crews have to get out and refuel once in a while, you know...

[Myrddin]

CTP2 ground combat system worked fine, in that it encouraged technological development and armies combining ranged attack, close combat and flanking units. The balance of units wasn't perfect but it did give you the option of retreating when you realised that you were outgunned.

[MORON]

...there had been thousands of systems of combat proposed for civ 3.

Hope they picked a good one.

[Dr Strangelove]

It's also true that faced by a technologically superior force sometimes the less sophisticated force will steal weapons and develop tactics to fight back. After a couple hundred years of retreating from european encroachment the amerinds eventually adopted european weapons. In the past 2 centuries there have been numerous examples of technoligically unsophisticated peoples holding the forces of more developed nations.

This gives me some ideas. When your force invades a country that's significantly less developed the victim should have the chance to appeal to your rivals for aid. This aid might come in the form of a donation of technology or even some sort of mechanism for donating production, i.e. units produced by ther benefactor, but deployed in the recipient nation as the recipient's units. In fact the intervention could come at a variety of levels ranging from donations of technology and/or production, to sending units, to naval blockade, to outright war.
Another way to handle conflict between nations with a technological disparity would be to giver the forces of the less developed nation the chance to convert to partisans when attacked by a superior unit. There would need to be two levels of partisans, one for the modern era, the other for the age of muskets and rifles.

[Urban Ranger]

Since combat strength is based on units but we have no clue how big a unit is, so combat strength is just as arbitrary as it gets. No a unit is not the same as a division or what have you. It's just a "unit." A unit of battleship could be just a battleship but a unit of galleons could be 100 ships.

I am not going to bet on which unit will win.


Dr Strangelove,

That's a cool idea.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
When your force invades a country that's significantly less developed the victim should have the chance to appeal to your rivals for aid. This aid might come in the form of a donation of technology or even some sort of mechanism for donating production, i.e. units produced by ther benefactor, but deployed in the recipient nation as the recipient's units. In fact the intervention could come at a variety of levels ranging from donations of technology and/or production, to sending units, to naval blockade, to outright war.

The basic diplomatic tools have been there. Defensive alliances. Tech donations. Unit donations. All we need from Civ 3 is the AI capable of intelligently using these tools, and the reason to do so. I can remember a good column a few months ago on precisely that subject. With trade being important and cultural factors discouraging your own tactical invasion, protecting your trading partners becomes worthwhile. The AI just needs now to know how to do so effectively!

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I'm confident that triremes could not beat a battleship but massed galleons could.

In the game yes it could happen. In life forget it. The Iowa class battleship carried 9, 16 inch guns and could fire a round 26 miles. Their 5 inch guns could fire a round about 15 miles.

[MORON]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I'm confident that triremes could not beat a battleship but massed galleons could.

In the game yes it could happen. In life forget it. The Iowa class battleship carried 9, 16 inch guns and could fire a round 26 miles. Their 5 inch guns could fire a round about 15 miles.

Not to say galleons burn easily under fire by explosive shells and its low velocity guns would bounce off battleship's steel armour easily.

Yamato class had 18inch guns

It's also true that faced by a technologically superior force sometimes the less sophisticated force will steal weapons and develop tactics to fight back.

Can we make spies steal tech from enemy units(of course only the ones that allows it to be build)? Sounds fun, fair and realistic.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by MORON
Yamato class had 18inch guns
Can we make spies steal tech from enemy units(of course only the ones that allows it to be build)? Sounds fun, fair and realistic.

Yes I would agree it was very good luck for the U.S. in that they did not have to fight the Yamato Ship to Ship. I think we would have won because we had more battleship to fight with. But a lot of people would have died. It kind of funny that after Pearl Harbor no American battleships was sunk. The Bismark was sunk before we the U.S. enter the war and the Yamato was sunk by aircraft as was the Bismark.
I agree with the Spies. In the Game as in real life we should alow spies to steal from somebody or a city.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by joseph1944

In the game yes it could happen. In life forget it. The Iowa class battleship carried 9, 16 inch guns and could fire a round 26 miles. Their 5 inch guns could fire a round about 15 miles.

A little bit of bad weather would solve that in pre-radar days. One lucky shot can be all it takes. I'm not saying it is likely, but it needs to be possible. Even if they have to somehow trick the battleship into letting itself get boarded!

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Grumbold


A little bit of bad weather would solve that in pre-radar days. One lucky shot can be all it takes. I'm not saying it is likely, but it needs to be possible. Even if they have to somehow trick the battleship into letting itself get boarded!

Hey there was a movie five or six years ago when Tommy Lee Jones took over the USS New Jersey or USS Missouri. The real bad thing if those boys in Yemen had boarded the USS Cole they may have taken the ship because all small arms are locked up except for the personnel on watch. That means there are only one or two .45 cal pistol at hand and maybe one M-16 carry by a crewman.